As promise of global plastics treaty peters out, where does India stand?

Negotiations aimed at agreeing on an international treaty to combat the global plastic pollution crisis failed to reach a consensus in Geneva on 15 August, Friday, despite negotiations continuing into overtime and overnight into the 11th day.

Delegates convening at the United Nations office to try and finalise what should have been a landmark treaty remained divided on whether the agreement should focus on curbing the explosive growth of plastic production or establish binding global controls on hazardous chemicals used in plastics — a trite, per many advocacy organisations, quantity vs quality debate.

This conference, the fifth on the topic, was supposed to be the final round, potentially resulting in the first legally binding international treaty on plastics, including as a contributor to oceanic pollution. Yet, similar to the deadlock that ended last year’s meeting in South Korea, the delegates are once again leaving without having reached an agreement.

Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of the negotiation committee, submitted and discussed two draft treaties in Geneva, both based on the expressed views of the various nations in attendance. However, disappointingly, representatives from the 184 countries present did not agree to adopt either text — far from in toto, not even as the foundation for further negotiations.

Having begun on 5 August, Thursday had been set as the final day of negotiations, but work on the revised draft persisted into Friday. As delegates reconvened in the assembly hall on Friday morning after having spent the night here, Valdivieso stated there was no current proposal to move forward with the latest draft — which was put forward as recently as 14 August, Thursday, itself.

That last version drew sharp criticism from several nations for lacking a clause to define binding limits on plastic production. To these nations, this draft kowtows to the highest fossil fuel-producing states, which want the treaty to focus on recycling, waste management and voluntary commitments rather than curbing manufacture or accepting mandatory limitations.

The thorny issues

This fifth round of negotiations on the plastics treaty (INC-5.2) is part of the efforts launched in 2022 to address what the United Nations calls a "plastic pollution crisis" that threatens oceans, wildlife, human health and the climate.

A key issue has been whether the treaty should impose limits on plastic production or concentrate on other strategies such as improved design, limited ingredients, better recycling technologies and mandated reuse. Major oil and gas producers and the plastics industry, unsurprisingly, oppose caps on production, favouring the focus on waste management and reuse instead.

The draft released early on Friday did not specify caps on production, as critics noted, but did acknowledge that the current levels of plastic manufacturing and consumption are “unsustainable” and require “a coordinated global response to halt and reverse such trends” — a seeming capitulation to nations who want to defer the setting of limits and focus on developing alternatives and ‘closing the circle’ first.

The revised objective was to adopt a holistic approach covering the entire lifecycle of plastics, including measures to reduce products with harmful chemicals, as well as limiting single-use or short-lived plastics.

While the new draft was more ambitious and improved than the one this gathering began with, it still violated some of the “red lines” that each country brought with them to Geneva, explained Magnus Heunicke, Denmark’s environment minister and holder of the rotating presidency of the Council of Europe.

“To be very clear, a compromise means that we have to bend our red lines,” he said.

Another contentious issue has been the framework of negotiations here (and in prior meetings on the subject): Being aimed at consensus, the current shape of negotiations requires that for any proposal to be included in the treaty, unanimous agreement is required.

This pathway has the support of India, which believes consensus is critical for the treaty to be effective, alongside Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and Vietnam, which hold similar views.

However, some nations have suggested that proposals be put to the vote if consensus cannot be reached.

Graham Forbes, Greenpeace’s chief delegate in Geneva, urged a shift towards voting, stating, “We are going in circles. We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result”, as the meeting neared the end on Friday.

Final reactions

Representatives from Norway, Australia, Tuvalu and several other nations expressed deep disappointment at departing Geneva without a treaty. As Madagascar remarked, the world “is expecting action, not reports from us”.

European commissioner Jessika Roswall was more optimistic, noting that while the draft fell short of expectations, it still provided a constructive foundation for future negotiations. “The Earth is not ours only. We are stewards for those who come after us. Let us fulfil that duty,” she said.

China’s delegation characterised the fight against plastic pollution as a long marathon, asserting that this setback marks just a new starting point to find consensus. It urged nations to collaborate for a future generation with “a blue planet without plastic pollution”.

Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, pointed out that both drafts lacked equilibrium, even as it agreed with Kuwait that the second proposal did better assimilate their countries' views. They argued, however, that addressing plastic production was outside the scope of the treaty.

Iran expressed disappointment, criticising the “non-transparent and non-inclusive processes on unrealistic elements”, especially regarding chemicals used in the manufacture of plastics.

However, of the 184 nations present, almost 100 wanted a limit on both overall plastic production and hazardous materials.

What's the science on this?

Annually, over 400 million tons of new plastic are produced worldwide, a figure expected to rise by about 70 per cent by 2040 if no policy measures are implemented.

Science underpins the importance of tackling pollution comprehensively, particularly through reducing the entire lifecycle impact however — from extraction and manufacturing to end-of-life management, said Bethanie Carney Almroth, an ecotoxicology professor at Sweden’s University of Gothenburg, who co-leads the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty.

“The science has not changed,” she emphasised. “It cannot be negotiated down.”

Scientists estimate that more than 430 million tonnes of plastic are produced each year, much of it in the form of short-lived products that become waste within months. Around 11 million tonnes enter the ocean annually. Under 10 per cent of global plastic waste was recycled in 2020.

Next steps?

David Azoulay, programme director and head of the delegation for the Center for International Environmental Law Environmental Health, issued a statement on the “failure” of the process — which he called an understatement — to declare: “The world does not need more plastic. The people know it, doctors know it, scientists know it, and the markets know it.”

The statement said, “Make no mistake, INC-5.2 has been an abject failure. When faced with a failure of this magnitude, it’s essential to learn from it. In the final days of the negotiations, we have clearly seen what many of us have known for some time — some countries did not come here to finalise a text, they came here to do the opposite: block any attempt at advancing a viable treaty.

“It’s impossible to find a common ground between those who are interested in protecting the status quo and the majority who are looking for a functional treaty that can be strengthened over time.” 

“While the negotiations will continue, they will fail if the process does not change,” the statement warned. “When a process is broken, as this one is, it is essential for countries to identify the necessary solutions to fix it and then do it. We need a restart, not a repeat performance.”

The statement advocated that countries that want a treaty abandon this negotiation process, with its “tyranny of consensus” and aim for “a treaty of the willing” instead.

“The movement to end plastic pollution goes beyond just the treaty, and it does not end here. Together, we will continue to rise to push back every step of the way, wherever we need to go.”

The United Nations Environment Programme announced that talks will continue at a later date, to be decided:

The many environmental advocates, waste pickers, Indigenous leaders and numerous business leaders who travelled to Geneva to voice their perspectives and employed often creative tactics to be seen and heard mostly left disillusioned, meanwhile.

Where does India stand now?

India’s stance has been that the interests of developing countries, including considerations related to economic development and waste management, must be balanced against addressing the full life-cycle impact of plastics. This is why it advocates for not only reducing plastic production but also promoting sustainable recycling, reuse and better design practices.

It also stresses the need for consensus among all nations for any such global treaty to be both effective and equitable.

During the negotiations, India highlighted the importance of including provisions that consider the realities of developing nations, such as their current waste management capacities and economic needs. Some Indian representatives have indicated that production caps could impact their economy and development goals, calling for a more balanced approach that includes infrastructure development and capacity building.

Current status of India's plastic pollution problem:

• Plastic production: India is among the top producers of plastic globally, manufacturing approximately 26 million tonnes of plastic annually. It is the fifth-largest producer of plastics in the world.

• Plastic waste generation: India generates about 3.3 million tonnes of plastic waste per year that goes into our oceans and contributes to global marine debris, with the total annual plastic waste expected to increase significantly in the coming years.

• Recycling and waste management: Only around 60 per cent of plastic waste in India is collected — and that's what is officially accounted for, not lost to water bodies and more — and of that, approximately 60–70 per cent is recycled. Despite the seemingly high recycling rate, a significant portion of plastic waste remains uncollected or is improperly disposed of (including burning).

• Environmental impact: As well as producing much of the pain, India ranks among the top countries harmed by plastic pollution as well — including ending up in our diets and in our lungs.

• Policy measures: A few Indian states and cities have introduced regulations such as banning single-use plastics or promoting extended producer responsibility (EPR) measures to incentivise manufacturers to manage their plastic waste. However, challenges of enforcement and infrastructure development mean these are frequently observed rather in the breach.