Environment activists make a human sign on a beach in Busan on Nov 24 calling for a strong global plastics treaty as negotiations began on Nov 25 – little knowing that there would be no treaty at the end of the conference on Dec 2, with negotiations postponed to 2025. — AP
LOCATED on the southern tip of Penang Island, the fishing village of Kampung Binjai in Batu Maung is probably as far as one can get from the teeming crowds in George Town, one of Malaysia’s favourite tourist attractions.
But even here, bobbing on the currents of Sungai Bayan Lepas and jostling against the fishing boats and the stilts of the wooden jetty, are hundreds of discarded plastic bottles and other plastic waste. Besides being an eyesore, this plastics pollution is also a health hazard – and it’s not just a problem in this village. Everywhere in Malaysia plastics pollution continues to pose an insurmountable challenge, staining our beaches and clogging up our rivers.
It’s just as bad around the globe. It seems the planet is bursting at the seams trying to contain plastic waste, and yet talks to do just that ended earlier this month without a consensus. Seemingly belying the urgency of the issue, the talks have been postponed.
Road blocks
The fifth session of the United Nations-backed Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) held in the port city of Busan, South Korea, was supposed to have been the final round in efforts to come up with the first global treaty on plastics pollution by the end of this year.
The talks began with tentative hope on Nov 25 and were attended by over 3,300 delegates from more than 200 countries and 440 organisations; they concluded on Dec 2 without an agreement, having made – according to Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) honorary secretary Mageswari Sangaralingam – “insufficient progress”.
Apparently, the delegates couldn’t see eye to eye on these key issues: financing for developing countries to transition from plastics, controlling the use of chemicals used in manufacturing plastics, and setting a cap on production.
The main clash appears to be about whether cutting plastics pollution should be made legally binding or left as a voluntary action coupled with prioritising better waste management and recycling.
Mageswari says SAM had gone to Busan with the expectation of seeing at the end of the talks a robust treaty that would protect human health and the environment from plastics pollution throughout its entire lifecycle, including reducing production.
“However, progress was slow and didn’t lead to finalising a text.
“The INC chair decided to suspend the meeting and to resume a new session in 2025,” she explains, adding that the date and location of INC 5.2 will be announced later.
When talks resume next year, the participating countries will use the chair’s latest text as the basis for continued negotiations.
The entire text itself, however, is still subject to negotiation.
“We are disappointed that the talks are being delayed as we need to solve the plastics crisis before plastics pollution overwhelms us,” says Mageswari.
Many environmentalists are laying the failure of the Busan talks at the door of the so-called petrostates and petrochemical companies, which are increasingly looking at plastics as a growth market as the world moves away from traditional cars to electric vehicles.
There are also accusations that similarly to how the UN climate change negotiations are being beleaguered by representatives and delegates from petrochemical companies, petrochemical lobbyists also swarmed the Busan talks.
Greenpeace South-East Asia’s Weng Dun Xin says its Break Free From Plastic coalition partner, the Center for International Environmental Law, has released a report revealing that a record number of 220 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists had registered as participants during the final critical negotiations at Busan, more than the 196 at the last meeting.
Greenpeace activists holding up banners protesting plastics pollution ahead of the opening ceremony of the Busan talks, which ended inconclusively on Dec 2. The environmental organisation is holding out hope that the postponed talks will allow for a better and stronger treaty next year. — APShe criticises the “negotiators for sticking with business as usual, abandoning their commitments, ignoring their principles, neglecting the science and economics in front of them, and failing those most impacted”.
However, Weng, who is Greenpeace Malaysia’s Zero-Waste Campaigner, believes that the postponement of the talks is not a total defeat – at least countries held out for a stronger treaty rather than agreeing to a weak one that would have locked the world into an endless cycle of unnecessary harm.
“While the postponement is concerning, Greenpeace sees this as better than accepting a weak treaty that would have been ineffective,” she says, adding that the organisation views this as a “strategic pause that prevented a symbolic agreement” which would have failed to address the plastics crisis holistically.
My way or the highway?
Another matter that concerns SAM is the pushback from some countries to carry out all proceedings, including decisions of the Conferences of Parties (COP), by consensus, says Mageswari.
“In this case, all countries negotiating the provisions that go into the treaty must agree to it. A proposal by some countries to have voting was not agreed upon.
“This would mean that ambitious provisions to ensure that the treaty is truly robust, which includes, among others, a cap on global plastics production, eliminating threats from toxic chemicals throughout plastics’ lifecycle, ensuring transparency and traceability of plastics chemicals, monitoring and control measures, and sufficient and predictable funding, can be vetoed by any one country,” she points out.
With plastics production heavily tied to the fossil fuels industry – it is estimated that some 350 million tonnes of oil are used every year to make plastic – countries whose economies are closely linked to these fields continue to demand for consensus, says Mageswari.
Plastic bottles piling up by the jetty at Kampung Binjai, Bayan Lepas, Penang. Plastics pollution is one of the biggest threats that marine ecosystems face the world over. Single use bottles, bags, and food wrappings are the biggest components of this waste. — BernamaIn contrast, small island developing countries, least developed countries, and developing countries that are facing threats from plastics pollution are calling for a global target to reduce the production of primary plastic polymers to sustainable levels.
Cutting plastics production, Mageswari maintains, is necessary if we are to curb plastics pollution.
“We cannot keep on producing more plastics as this will lead to more pollution throughout the full lifecycle of plastics,” she says.
Both Mageswari and Weng agree that the longer the negotiations are stalled or derailed, the worse the problem is going to get.
According to estimates by the UN, since 1950, over eight billion tonnes of plastics have been produced globally but less than 10% has been recycled.
This has led to millions of tonnes entering the world’s oceans and seas, posing serious risks to wildlife, the environment, and, ultimately, to human health – we are already ingesting microplastics and no one knows yet what effects this has.
And because plastic is produced from fossil fuels, cutting plastics production will also help reduce emissions and, hence, global warming.
“Communities, especially in South-East Asia – including Malaysia – continue to bear the environmental and health impacts of the increasing plastics pollution that is transboundary,” says Weng.
Citing indigenous people, women, children, waste pickers, and frontline and fenceline communities as among those gravely affected, Mageswari warns that “plastics production, usage, and end-of-life issues adversely impact communities across the globe, especially the most vulnerable and marginalised communities, and the small island states”.
Dangers ahead
Mageswari warns that the negotiation process for the treaty on plastics remains at risk of being undermined by “blockers” such as petrostates and the fossil fuel and plastics industries. At risk are several important provisions.
“There are a number of provisions that have yet to be agreed upon, such as the call for production cuts, the elimination of the most harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern, and the setting up of an adequate financing mechanism to support the effective implementation of the treaty, notably in developing countries,” she says.
The financing mechanism is especially important – and especially so for developing countries – to deal with upstream control measures, the identification of plastics pollution hotspots, and effecting remedies.
“The mechanism has yet to be agreed upon, including our call for the ‘polluter pays’ principle,” says Mageswari.
However, she is pleased to note that for developing countries like Malaysia, and other countries in the region, that are devastated by the global waste trade, there is now a provision in the Chair’s text which requires developed countries that are parties to the treaty – which are also parties to the Basel Convention – to take measures to prohibit the export of plastic waste.
“Still, we’re disappointed by the removal of language on waste hierarchy and the inclusion of false solutions like waste-to-energy in the current chair’s text.
“However these provisions are still subject to negotiations,” she says.
The Basel Convention is an international treaty designed to control and regulate the transboundary movement and disposal of hazardous waste, including plastics. Malaysia became a party to the convention in 1993.
Weng says while the Basel Convention and its plastic waste amendments laid crucial groundwork for regulating international plastic waste trade, it still needs stronger implementation and enforcement mechanisms, and clearer criteria for environmentally-sound waste management.
“The Global Plastics Treaty negotiations present a timely opportunity to strengthen these existing frameworks and create more effective governance to address the plastic waste crisis,” she says.
When such a treaty is ready, Weng urges the Malaysian government to sign and ratify it and implement stringent policies to control plastics production and manage plastic waste effectively.
“This involves establishing clear targets for reducing plastic usage, banning single-use plastics, and encouraging the development and the move to a reuse and refill economy.
“By committing to the Global Plastics Treaty and implementing these comprehensive measures, Malaysia can lead by example in the fight against plastics pollution and protect human health and our ecosystems,” she says.
With Malaysia chairing Asean next year, the Asean Summit 2025, adds Weng, must gather strong leadership and foster the urgency to look into the plastics pollution crisis, with Extended Producer Responsibility schemes, production reduction, and a ban on single-use plastics.
Mageswari calls on Malaysia to prioritise the health and welfare of people and the planet, and not align with the petrostates and fossil fuel and plastics industry.
“At the INC, Malaysia was supporting more national commitments and not global controls. We are facing a global plastics crisis so the solution needs to be global.”What’s next?
For the next INC meeting, Mageswari says SAM is calling for a democratic, transparent, and inclusive process so that the outcome will be an ambitious plastics treaty.
She says that as designated observers at the Busan meeting, SAM, as well as civil society organisations and activist groups from other countries, had been present at the negotiations to urge their governments to negotiate a treaty that is protective of human health and the environment.
“However, we were restricted due to unjustified decisions to keep the negotiations behind closed doors for the final days of the INC during the informal sessions,” she says.
This “practice of secrecy”, she continues, was also present at other times during the talks, including setting the stage for the preparation of documents used as the starting point for negotiations.
“Without the participation of those most harmed by plastics pollution the deliberations are likely to be inadequate and may compromise the outcome of the treaty.
“Thus, we demand a democratic, transparent, and inclusive process at the next meeting so that the outcome will be an ambitious plastics treaty.”
Besides continuing to push ambitiously for the cap on plastics production and ensuring that it is legally binding, Mageswari says SAM will advocate for a treaty text and future COP where decisions are made through majority voting when consensus cannot be reached.
“Without this option, the COP could fall back on the least ambitious approach, or decisions could be blocked by a small group of countries,” she says.
As for Greenpeace, Weng says, globally, it will be setting out a clear plan of work post-Busan to ensure that INC-5.2 is meaningful.
“... But the key issue is the political will to ensure there is no compromise at the next meeting.
“With political headwinds as strong as they are, this will be very challenging but Greenpeace has never been more prepared for the battle or the powerful.”
Looks like the next meeting could be equally contentious and interesting.
