New push to reach plastic pollution pact

The negotiators will try another blow to reach a global pact on plastic pollution during the conferences which opened Tuesday in Geneva, but they are faced with deep divisions on how to fight against health and ecological danger.

The next 10 days of talks involving delegates of nearly 180 nations follow a failure to conclude an agreement last December on how to stop millions of tonnes of plastic waste entering the environment each year.

Plastic pollution is so omnipresent that microplastics were found on the highest top mountain, in the deepest and dispersed ocean trench in almost all parts of the human body.

In 2022, countries agreed that they would find a way to fight against the crisis by the end of 2024, but the talks in Busan, South Korea, did not overcome the fundamental differences.

A group of countries has requested an ambitious global connection agreement to limit production and eliminate harmful chemicals.

However, a group of nations producing mainly oil rejected production limits and wanted to focus on waste treatment.

The issues are high. If nothing is done, overall plastic consumption could triple by 2060, according to the projections of the OECD.

Meanwhile, plastic waste in soils and browsing lanes should increase by 50% by 2040, according to the United Nations Environment Program (UNP), which acts as secretariat for talks.

Some 460 million tonnes of plastic are produced worldwide each year, half of which is for single use. And less than 10% of plastic waste is recycled.

Plastics decompose in bits so small that not only they find their way throughout the ecosystem, but in blood and human organs, according to recent studies, with largely unknown consequences on the health of current and future generations.

‘Forever chemicals’

Despite the complexity of trying to reconcile the divergent interests of the environment, human health and industry, “it is very possible to leave Geneva with a treaty,” said ENPE executive director Andersen, to the press in the breakdown of talks.

The text published after the failure of the talks in South Korea contained 300 points which were still resolved.

“You have more than 300 supports in the text, which means that you have more than 300 disagreements,” said Bjorn Beeler, Executive Director and International Coordinator at IPEN, a global network to limit toxic chemicals. “So 300 disagreements must be treated.”

The most conflicting problem is to restrict the production of new plastic, with oil -producing nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia opposing the limits.

Another controversial point: to establish a list of chemicals considered to be dangerous, as per- and polyfluoroalkyle substances (PFAS), a family of synthetic chemicals often called chemicals forever because they take a long time to decompose.

Bjorn Beeler, head of the Ipen network of groups of activists working to eliminate pollutants, said that no one wanted talks to go in a third round and that diplomats must show progress.

The “context is difficult”, a diplomatic source recognized on condition of anonymity, saying that they could not ignore the American attitude changed to multilateral initiatives under the administration of Donald Trump.

Lobbyists at work

Meanwhile, developing countries are strongly interested in talks “, either because they are plastic producers, a risk of a strong impact on their savings, or because they suffer from plastic pollution and demand for responsibility,” said the same source.

In Nice in June, during the UN Ocean Conference, 96 countries, ranging from tiny island states in Zimbabwe, including the 27 members of the European Union, Mexico and Senegal, called for an ambitious treaty, including a target to reduce the production and consumption of plastics.

Iane Seid, president of the Alliance of Small island States (AOSIS), said that “the treaty should cover the full life cycle of plastics and this includes production. It should not be a waste management treaty.”

“Governments must act in the interest of people, not polluters,” said Graham Forbes, head of the Greenpeace delegation during talks, who denounced the presence of industry lobbyists.

The Beeler of Ipeen said that the negotiators wanted to avoid another series of discussions, but that does not guarantee that a global agreement will be concluded.

“The evacuation hatch is probably a skeleton that will be called a treaty, which must have finances, guts and a soul to be really effective,” he said.

© 2025 AFP