Some agreements at treaty talks despite failure to complete deal

While the plastics treaty talks failed to close the deal in South Korea — and big hurdles remain — diplomats and participants on all sides came away pointing to signs of progress despite the rancor.

Public debates and press conferences at the talks in Busan focused on major conflicts, like whether to include production caps.

But many observers also said that, behind the scenes, areas of agreement were clearly emerging. Countries plan to meet again in 2025 to try to salvage a deal from what could have been the collapse of the talks in Busan.

The International Council of Chemical Associations, for example, said some its key priorities were showing up in the treaty's draft framework, even if things it opposes such as targets to reduce plastic production were also there.

"It's pretty clear, when you look through the text, you do see that there are a number of elements that are ICCA priorities," said ICCA spokesman Stewart Harris, pointing to language around product design, waste management, recycling rates and extended producer responsibility.

"I do think governments were moving toward some consensus texts on which they could agree at this meeting, and they really ran out of time," he said.

In a Dec. 2 interview in Busan, hours after the talks ended, Harris said those areas where governments are finding agreement are "going to be useful to our priority of this agreement sending clear demand signals to the private sector to help improve circularity."

But those on the other side, like Norwegian government negotiator Erlend Draget, also pointed to growing agreement at the Busan talks for controversial provisions like production reduction targets and chemicals toxicity.

"Despite pushback from some countries, we saw significant convergence emerge at this meeting," said Draget, whose country is one of two co-chairs of the High Ambition Coalition, a group of 60-plus countries. "For the first time we can see the contours of a treaty most can support in the revised text."

The group Zero Waste Europe called it a "little mentioned victory" that the framing of the talks have shifted away from nations who want a more limited treaty confined to waste management and recycling, like Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran.

"The battle of the framing is won," said Joan Marc Simon, ZWE founder. "The blockers of this process openly talk against production cuts, plastic levies and toxic chemicals.

"They are, thereby, accepting a framing which they neither control nor master, and which provides the conditions for the countries with ambition to draw a line behind which they stand together with civil society and progressive industry," Simon said.

While controversial areas like production caps dominated the public debate in Busan, ICCA and others noted increasing agreement in more behind-the-scenes topics they say are important.

ICCA, which is an umbrella group of associations representing plastics resin makers, favors a focus on demand-side signals it says will put more value on plastic waste and support investment decisions by industry.

"On those areas where we think governments need to focus, we are seeing very positive signals," said Harris, who is also managing director of global affairs in the regulatory division of the American Chemistry Council. "EPR, recycled content, recycled plastic requirements, recycling rate targets, those are the types of things we think are critical and we're starting to see that in the draft."

The draft language does not include one priority for ICCA, specific recycled content targets, but Harris said it and other areas will get fleshed out either at the next session of the treaty's intergovernmental negotiating committee, dubbed INC-5.2, or in the Conference of Parties meetings later to implement and revise the agreement.

"Demand side measures are far more effective at addressing this problem," Harris said. "We know how effective things like recycled content requirements, recycling rate targets, tools like EPR are, at sending a signal to the private sector to shift."

ICCA also sees the treaty's waste management section has good language that will be "critical to helping address the lack of access to waste management for 2.7 billion people," Harris said.

Similarly, the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, a coalition of consumer brands, retailers and investors, called the treaty's latest draft framework released in Busan "a step forward on product design and waste management as a basis for future negotiations."

Anke Boykin, senior director of global environmental policy at coalition member PepsiCo Inc., said the talks made progress and "reached a new level of depth and nuance. The collective understanding of key issues and needed actions continues to grow."

Still, she said in a social media post that the EPR provisions in the draft text need clearer definitions and clarity to speed up their implementation globally.

Countries and groups that want production limits and chemical toxicity language, including the business coalition, also said they saw more support for those priorities.

"We are encouraged by the increased alignment amongst over 100 countries on critical elements such as global phase-outs and sustainable levels of plastic production," the business coalition said. "Never before have so many countries clearly articulated support for these obligations."

Ed Shepherd, a senior global sustainability manager at Unilever plc and a business coalition member, called it a positive that "a growing majority of countries [are] finding an ambitious middle ground on critical topics like plastic production."

Echoing business coalition points, he argued that governments at the INC 5.2 should be prepared to give up on the idea of a treaty with "universal support" and limited impact, and instead should work toward an agreement with stronger rules.

ICCA, for its part, argues that supply constraints such as production limits could raise prices and have unintended consequences. Saudi Arabia, Russia and other oil producing nations pushed against production reductions in plenary.

A few developing countries like Indonesia argued in written statements in Busan that production cuts could limit their development.

But many other developing and developed countries said production limits are needed to address economic imbalances from an oversupply of inexpensive virgin plastic, which they said undermines the economics of recycling.

They staged their own dramatic intervention during the final plenary.

A delegate from Rwanda, which is a co-chair of the High Ambition Coalition, gave a speech from the floor Dec. 1 saying that 85 countries supported having the treaty develop production reduction targets, as well as the treaty including binding obligations to phase out harmful chemicals and plastic products.

The delegate, Juliet Kabera, then asked people in the plenary to stand if they agreed, leading to the longest round of sustained applause from many diplomats and observers.

Her speech came as countries in the plenary were trading debate points and offering more restrained applause for their arguments.

While it was apparent by that point in the evening of Dec. 1 that Busan would not yield an agreement — and there's no guarantee that the yet-to-be-scheduled 2025 extra session will succeed — Kabera's intervention seemed to be public muscle flexing.

"We voice our strong concerns about ongoing calls by a small group of countries to remove binding provisions from the text that are indispensable for the treaty to be effective," Kabera said, outlining four key points including reduction targets. "A treaty that lacks these elements and only relies on voluntary measures would not be acceptable."