Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso, chair of global negotiations for a treaty to end plastic pollution, is aware of the ticking clock. He has been counting the number of weeks still available for meetings before the final talks in Busan, South Korea, in November. He knows there are 63 hours available in that session for diplomats to hammer out a deal based on consensus.
To continue reading, subscribe to Eco‑Business.
There's something for everyone. We offer a range of subscription plans.
- Access our stories and receive our Insights Weekly newsletter with the free EB Member plan.
- Unlock unlimited access to our content and archive with EB Circle.
- Publish your content with EB Premium.
It is a tight timeline. After over three years and four formal meetings, the world has yet to find common ground on how best to slash and treat plastic waste, piling pressure on the last scheduled round of talks towards an agreement many view as crucial to preventing the ruination of the ocean.
Without intervention, both plastic use and waste worldwide could triple by 2060, according to the international bloc Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In that time, over a billion tonnes of plastics, which does not degrade for centuries, could clog waterways, causing untold environmental and health impacts. Plastic waste fragments have already been found in human organs and the darkest depths of the ocean.
A global agreement with firm rules and targets could help steer the world clear of the worst scenarios. So it does not help that drafts for such a deal, far from being finalised, have become more unwieldy in recent months. The latest version, a 77-page unedited compilation of submissions published last month, is “quite a difficult text to work with”, Valdivieso had heard from country negotiators.
“
We all agree on the need to combat and end plastic pollution. The question is how do we do it.
Luis Vayas Valdivieso, chair of global negotiations for a treaty to end plastic pollution
“Even though it is a formal text, if we take it as a starting point of negotiations, it will take us three or four more Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee [sessions], even though we have already had four,” said Valdivieso, referring to the United Nations talks by its technical name.
In some ways, the latest draft is an improvement on previous versions. There are now just two main choices, instead of 16, for the scope of the treaty, one suggesting a broad review of the entire plastics value chain, and another focusing on pollution control. At the last round of negotiations in Canada in April, the first Valdivieso chaired, delegates agreed to ensure products are recyclable, and avoid the use of plastics where alternatives exist.
But the current text still has over 3,000 sets of square brackets – UN punctuation indicating debated phrasing – and is eight pages longer than before.
To refocus talks and reconcile country positions faster, Valdivieso is now penning an “elements” proposal – his “initial thoughts of the sequencing of issues” for an effective treaty. He declines to share details now, saying negotiators have been promised to receive the draft from him at the same time next week.
He is also organising informal gatherings with heads of country delegations where possible. An online session is scheduled for mid-September, before an in-person meet at the end of the month in Nairobi, Kenya. He found time between these meetings while in Bangkok, Thailand this week, on the sidelines of technical discussions, to speak with Eco-Business.
In global environmental negotiations, it is not uncommon that deals take until the eleventh hour – as has happened repeatedly at climate meetings. But Valdivieso is not keen to wait till then.
“It is important that we get to as high as possible a level of common understanding. Because that will make our negotiations in Busan, I won’t say easier, but less complex,” he said.
While Valdivieso, presiding over the negotiations, can set the tone and draft “non-paper” proposals to narrow differences between parties, it is up to every country under the UN Environment Programme to agree on – and not stall – a global treaty which needs 100 per cent consensus to pass.
As it stands, fundamental rifts still exist over whether the treaty should call for a reduction in plastics production, beyond tackling waste and toxicity. Peru and Rwanda had rallied for a 40 per cent cut in global use of primary plastics by 2040 at the last round of talks, though it faced opposition from countries such as the US and UK.
Countries are also split on if there should be voluntary national targets, or a global goal on slashing plastic pollution. Judging by the latest draft, some countries appear to prefer no explicit discussions on issues such as “transparency, tracking, monitoring and labelling”. Nations are also jostling on how to provide financing for developing countries to implement any measures the agreement calls for.
“It is not that there is a country or somebody saying we don’t need to…we all agree on the need to combat and end plastic pollution. The question is how do we do it,” Valdivieso said.
On the calls and rebuttals on cutting primary plastic production, he referred to the original terms of reference for the negotiations from back in 2022, which asked countries to address the “full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design, and disposal”. Member states are doing so, Valdivieso said, even as the latest draft features language on excluding “extraction and processing of primary raw materials and virgin polymer production”.
A river patroller collects plastic waste from San Juan river in Mandaluyong in Metro Manila, Philippines. Image: Ezra Acayan
Many business interests are at stake. Major producers of virgin plastic and its fossil fuel feedstock, such as India, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, have been unwilling to let go of the gainful ventures, according to readouts of previous talks. Southeast Asia hosts a thriving single-use “sachet economy”, fuelled by demand for convenience in its many bustling cities.
Waste management businesses, meanwhile, are eyeing if policymakers will agree on implementing polluter-pay schemes that could drastically expand the market for collecting and treating waste. Carbon credit certifier Verra issued a report last week arguing for the use of plastic credits to augment financing for these ventures.
Green advocacy groups have said at previous sessions that there had been too much pressure from plastics producers. Nonprofit Center for International Environmental Law counted 196 petrochemicals lobbyists at the April talks. In return, business representatives say environmental campaigners have been casting them as unwelcome. An official at North American trade association EPS Industry Alliance told news outlet Mongabay that environmentalists don’t know enough about waste management and overstate the health risks.
Valdivieso noted that participation of non-government groups and the private sector has grown possibly over three times since the first talks in 2022, and said it was important to have “engagement and compromise” between the various stakeholders. The participant list for the April talks included over 500 non-government organisations, the majority of which were development and environment groups.
Valdivieso added that the negotiation process, and he himself, have been guided by scientists. New evidence of the dangers of plastic pollution has emerged since the start of proceedings in 2022, he noted.
Researchers have found microplastics in human brain samples obtained in recent years from a lab in the US, according to a pre-print medical paper published in May but not peer reviewed. Existing studies have already found such particles in other parts of the human body, and suggested their prevalence increases the risk of cancer.
Despite the challenges, Valdivieso wants a final text settled by the end of the year, according to the timeline stated in the mandate handed to him.
“My objective is to end in Busan with an effective document that will become a treaty later on. That’s my objective, and I’m confident that we will do it,” he said, referring to the end-November talks in South Korea. He does not see a clash between ambition and consensus, when asked which he was prioritising.
What Valdivieso wants to see countries work out is an effective text that countries can sign on to, to “not only combat, but to end plastic pollution”.
