Talks on the world\u2019s first legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution have stalled just one day before the negotiations are due to end.<\/p>\n
Some of the countries calling for an ambitious treaty to include targets to reduce plastic production, including Colombia, the EU and the UK, have rejected as \u201cunacceptable\u201d and \u201cunambitious\u201d a draft treaty text that does not include production caps, nor address chemicals used in plastic products.<\/p>\n
Almost 100 countries, including Australia, Canada, Mexico and many African and Pacific nations, have called for the adoption of legally binding measures to limit plastic production in order to address plastic at source. Many have said toxic chemicals in plastics need to be controlled.<\/p>\n
The main sticking point at the talks, now in their third year, has been whether to cap plastic production or to focus on issues such as better design, recycling and reuse.<\/p>\n
But oil- and plastic-producing nations, including Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran, the \u201clike-minded group\u201d which has reportedly been supported by the US as well as the chemical industry, reject production limits and instead want the treaty to focus on measures such as waste management and recycling.<\/p>\n
At a meeting in Geneva on Wednesday, many countries rejected the latest treaty text presented by the chair, Luis Vayas Valdivieso. They said they were \u201cextremely concerned\u201d or \u201cdisappointed\u201d by the low level of ambition it contained.<\/p>\n
Colombia\u2019s delegate, Sebasti\u00e1n Rodr\u00edguez, rejected the draft text as \u201ccompletely unacceptable\u201d, while Julio Cordano, head of delegation for Chile, said it contained gaps and shortcomings which did not reflect the scale of the problem.<\/p>\n
Panama\u2019s delegate, Juan Carlos Monterrey G\u00f3mez, also said it could not accept the draft text as a basis of negotiation and that its red lines had been \u201cspat on and burned\u201d.<\/p>\n
The negotiators had \u201conly 30 hours\u201d to find a solution to end plastic pollution, not \u201cjust a political solution\u201d, he added.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is not ambition, it is surrender,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
The UK\u2019s head of delegation, Jane Barton, said the text was the \u201clowest common denominator\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe need an effective treaty for our people and for our planet. Time is running out,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
The new draft contains one mention of plastic production, in the preamble reaffirming the importance of sustainable plastic production and consumption. An article on production from a previous draft has been removed. There is no mention of chemicals. A reference to the \u201cfull life cycle\u201d of plastics in a previous draft has also been removed.<\/p>\n
Kenya described the draft as a \u201cwaste management\u201d instrument, which had \u201cno democratic value\u201d for states seeking to limit plastic, while Mexico said it represented a \u201ccrisis in multilateralism\u201d.<\/p>\n
Dennis Clare, a negotiator for Micronesia, said: \u201cSome parties, including ours, are not even willing to engage on that text, it\u2019s a step backward.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIt certainly seems like it was very biased toward the like-minded countries [Saudi, Russia, Iran etc]. There\u2019s problems across the board. There\u2019s no binding measures on anything. There\u2019s no obligation to contribute resources to the financial mechanism. There\u2019s no measures on production or chemicals. This text is just inadequate.\u201d<\/p>\n
Speaking before the release of the chair\u2019s text, Juan Carlos Lozada, a <\/strong>member of the house of representatives of Colombia, said: \u201cIf the production keeps growing at the rate it has grown in the last decades, we have no hope for 2050, 2060. So if the treaty doesn\u2019t have those elements, those key elements, there\u2019s no treaty. I\u2019d rather not have a treaty if we\u2019re not going to have a very robust treaty.\u201d<\/p>\n