The countries will spend a week in Busan, South Korea, starting Monday, to wrap up the two-year negotiations.

Deep divisions remain over whether the agreement should limit plastic production and some chemicals, and whether the agreement should even be adopted by majority vote or consensus.

UN Environment Program chief Inger Andersen warned this month that the talks were a “moment of truth”.

“Busan can and should mark the end of the negotiations,” he insisted, in a nod to growing speculation that the process could be extended.

Acknowledging that serious differences remain, he called for “greater convergence” in the most difficult areas.

“Everyone wants plastic pollution to end,” he said.

“It is now up to member states to deliver.”

There is little debate about the extent of the problem.

According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the world produced approximately 460 million tonnes of plastic in 2019; this figure has doubled since 2000.

Plastic production is expected to triple by 2060.

fault line

More than 90 percent of plastic is not recycled, and over 20 million tonnes of plastic leaks into the environment, often after just a few minutes of use.

Microplastics have been found in the deepest parts of the oceans, on the world’s highest mountain peaks, and in almost every part of the human body.

Plastic also accounts for around three percent of global emissions, mostly linked to its production from fossil fuels.

The main fault line in the talks is where the problem will be solved.

Some countries, including the High Ambition Coalition (HAC), which brings together many African, Asian and European countries, want to discuss the entire “life cycle” of plastic.

This means limiting production, repurposing products for reuse and recycling, and handling waste.

On the other side, there are countries such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, which are mostly oil producers and want to focus only on waste.

HAC wants binding global targets on reducing production and warned ahead of the Busan talks that “vested interests” should not be allowed to block the deal.

The departments blocked four previous rounds of negotiations, producing an unwieldy document exceeding 70 pages.

The diplomat chairing the talks prepared an alternative document aimed at synthesizing the delegations’ views and advancing negotiations.

‘Expectations are high’

It is a more manageable 17 pages and highlights areas of agreement, including the need to promote reusability.

But it leaves the thorniest issues largely unaddressed.

A European diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, warned that the document was “not ambitious enough” on several issues.

The Center for International Environmental Law’s assessment was clearer: “The text would deliver an ineffective and useless agreement and fail to adequately address the plastic crisis.”

Key to any deal will be the United States and China, which are not openly on the side of either bloc.

Earlier this year, Washington signaled support for some restrictions on production, raising hopes among environmentalists; this position has now reportedly been withdrawn.

The election of Donald Trump has also raised questions about how assertive the US delegation will be and whether negotiators should bother to seek US support when a deal is unlikely to be approved by Washington.

Some plastic producers are urging governments to focus on waste management and reusability, warning that production limits would lead to “unintended consequences”.

But others support an agreement with global standards, including “sustainable” production levels.

“Expectations for Busan are high,” said Eirik Lindebjerg, global plastics policy leader at conservation group WWF.

An “overwhelming majority” of countries already support binding rules across the plastic life cycle, he told AFP.

“It is now up to the leaders of these countries to deliver the deal the world needs and not let a handful of reluctant countries or industry interests stop it.”

© 2024 AFP