Negotiations to produce a legally binding treaty to curb the global explosion of plastic pollution fell short on Sunday as efforts to limit the production of fossil fuel-based plastics supported by over 100 countries, including the European Union, met fierce opposition from oil-producing nations.

A coalition of oil and gas producers led by Saudi Arabia that included Iran, Russia, and other Gulf states under the Arab group, opposed capping plastic production, insisting the treaty should focus solely on plastics waste management.

Negotiations this week in Busan, South Korea (known as INC-5), were meant to be the final round of a two-year process to create what the UN Environment Agency and environmental groups called “the most important multilateral treaty” since the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

Instead, the Busan summit became the third major failure of multilateral environmental negotiations in as many weeks, following disappointing outcomes at COP29 in Baku and a total collapse of talks over new funding and enforcement mechanisms at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’s COP16 in Cali, Colombia, which aimed to protect nature and wildlife.

“A few critical issues still prevent us from reaching a comprehensive agreement,” said the chair of the negotiations, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, Sunday evening, in delivering the message there would be no final outcome at this round.

Nearly 200 nations participated in the negotiations. The next round of plastics negotiations has not been scheduled or assigned a location.

“Our mandate has always been ambitious. But ambition takes time to land,” Valdivieso said. “We have many of the elements that we need, and Busan has put us firmly on a pathway to success … to reverse and remedy the severe effects of plastic pollution on ecosystems and human health.”

Deep fault lines unresolved

Deep fault lines have persisted since talks began in Paris in March 2022. Nations remain divided over plastic production limits, bans on harmful chemicals in plastics, recycling’s role in solving the crisis, and funding for developing nations to implement the treaty’s goals.

The scale of disagreement was laid bare in the previous negotiating round in Ottawa in April, which produced a near-illegible draft with 3,400 disputed sections. The final text published by the chair has whittled these down to 340 contested items, but the core disputes that have defined debates since the start remain unsolved.

“It is clear there is persisting divergence in critical areas,” UNEP executive director Inger Andersen said in a statement, adding that talks had “moved us closer” to a legally binding treaty to protect “our future from the onslaught of plastic pollution.”

While the failure to reach an agreement after 18 months marks a significant setback, other major UN environmental processes have faced far longer paths. It took three decades for climate negotiations to formally acknowledge fossil fuels’ role in global warming, while UN biodiversity talks reached their first binding treaty in 2022, thirty years after the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.

“The world’s commitment to ending plastic pollution is clear and undeniable,” Andersen said. “More time is needed.”

Ambition up

More than 100 countries, including the EU and the United Kingdom, backed a Panama-led draft text in Busan calling for reducing plastic production to “sustainable levels”. The proposal would require nations to report their plastic production, import and export data to monitor global progress on curbing new plastics.

The level of support mirrors broader backing for tough measures on plastics. WWF tallies from the third round of negotiations in Nairobi in late 2023 showed over 100 countries favouring bans or phase-outs of the most harmful plastics, with 140 pushing for a legally binding treaty.

These nations argue plastic production is the root of the crisis. In the thousand days since nations first agreed to establish a binding treaty on plastic pollution, manufacturers have produced more than 800 million tonnes of new plastic, over 30 million tonnes have leaked into oceans, while millions more have been incinerated or sent to landfills.

“Postponing negotiations does not postpone the crisis,” Panama’s lead negotiator, Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, told the closing plenary on Sunday. “When we reconvene, the stakes will be higher. This is not a drill, this is a fight for survival. We did not accept a weak treaty here, and we never will.”

But the bloc known as the “like-minded” group of petrochemical producers, led by Saudi Arabia and including Russia, Iran, and other Arab states, oppose Panama’s proposal to limit production. These nations argue that including production limits oversteps the treaty’s mandate, which they say should focus solely on plastic pollution and waste.

Their plan to maintain plastic production growth threatens to derail global climate goals. Scientists estimate that a 75% reduction in plastic production is needed by 2040 to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Without such cuts, plastic production alone could consume up to 31% of the world’s remaining carbon budget to stay within that critical temperature threshold.

Health risks mount as treaty’s approach remains undecided

Beyond the climate impacts, plastics pose escalating health risks through contamination of air, water, soil, and through those channels, terrestrial food chains and ocean life – all pathways for contaminants to penetrate people’s bodies.

Scientists have detected plastic particles in human blood, lungs, breast milk, and unborn children. Research shows that people unknowingly consume about five grams of microplastics weekly through eating, drinking and breathing, while over 3,200 chemicals in plastics have known toxic effects and another 5,000 remain inadequately studied.

Researchers have even discovered “plasticosis,” a new condition where microplastics alter cell behaviour in human and animal organs.

Despite this growing evidence base, the treaty’s approach to health remains undecided. The final text presents two options: a standalone health article championed by Brazil, or strengthened health references throughout the document.

With negotiations in Busan conducted behind closed doors, countries’ positions on this choice remain unclear.

“Our babies are entering this world with their brains and bodies already contaminated with plastics, exposing them to toxic chemicals that can affect their ability to learn and increase their risk of endocrine disorders, reproductive harm, and cancers,” Aileen Lucero from the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) told delegates at the closing session.

The financial toll on health is mounting. The Endocrine Society found just four families of plastic chemicals cause over $400 billion in annual health costs in the United States alone. Globally, the UN Environment Programme warns that inaction on chemical and plastic pollution could cost up to 10% of global GDP.

“The science is clear: A treaty that protects human health and the environment needs to address the issues of plastic production and chemicals,” said Bethanie Carney Almroth, Professor at the University of Gothenburg, speaking for the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, a network of over 400 independent experts.

Paradox for the healthcare industry

There is also a paradox, however, for healthcare professionals. The healthcare industry relies heavily on plastics like PVC in essential medical equipment from IV tubing to protective gloves and masks. The COVID-19 pandemic only deepened this dependence as single-use protective gloves and masks became even more widely used by the general public, as well as health care practitioners, for infection prevention. 

But at the same time that a growing chorus of voices in the health sector also are calling attention to the health impacts of plastics in medical devices. Groups like Health Care Without Harm have worked to reduce use, and improve management, of plastics in health care facilities, and particularly of PVC, whose production requires large inputs of highly toxic mercury, asbestos or PFAS [per- and polyfluoroalkyl. One PVC’s main building blocks, vinyl chloride, is a potent carcinogen. They also have called out the impacts of health sector medical waste incineration – which in low- and middle-income countries may be in primitive stoves or open pit fires. This further generates community exposures to dangerous particulate pollution as well as longer-lived Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS), such as dioxins and furans.

At the same time, improving health sector management of plastics used, and eventually transition to new types of single-use materials that are both safe and environmentally friendly is not an easy process – a widely acknowledged fact of life.

“There are specific considerations for the health industry due to the stringent regulatory rules that are applied to ensure that materials meet rigorous quality, safety, and efficacy standards to protect patient health. Changes require time and resources, from industry and from national regulatory agencies, to be implemented. Testing and validation of innovative packaging material can take up to 5-10 years to complete,” said the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), in a joint statment with the Global Self Care Federation and the International Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association, at the start of the Busan meeting.

“We believe it is possible to achieve a treaty that protects both the environment and human health, through harmonized, targeted extended compliance periods; in line with regulatory standards and timelines; and through limited exemptions where no feasible and safe alternatives exist at sufficient quality and scale,” the statement continued. “It will be critical to include such provisions in both the instrument and the annexes, as required. This will provide the approach needed to transition while new or alternative materials, processes, and formulations are established in collaboration with regulatory authorities.”

Fossil fuels crash the party, again

Regardless of whether the concerns related to health, environment or climate, oil-producing nations maintained the treaty’s focus should be on the waste, and not the product itself.

“The objective of this treaty is to end plastic pollution, not plastic itself,” Kuwait stated for the “like-minded group” of fossil fuel producers on the final day. “Attempting to phase out plastic rather than addressing the issue of plastic production risks undermining global progress and exacerbating economic inequality.”

With negotiations largely behind closed doors, observer access was limited. Yet reports emerged of Saudi Arabia’s blocking tactics – from demanding unanimity on every decision to raising repeated procedural objections. The Saudi delegation even disputed a Brazilian working group leader’s authority to schedule a lunch meeting to recover lost time, the New York Times reported.

The Global Partnership for Plastics Circularity, an industry group established specifically to influence the treaty talks and representing fossil fuel giants like Saudi Aramco, Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil, emphasised “addressing mismanaged waste” through improved recycling and waste collection systems.

These arguments mirror tactics the petrochemical industry has employed since the 1960s. But decades of evidence tell a different story. Of the 8.3 billion tons of plastic ever produced, only 9% has been recycled, while 79% has ended up in landfills or the environment.

The 2023 Plastics Overshoot report found that 43% of plastic produced globally is mismanaged and will likely contaminate air, water, or soil. The 2023 Plastic Waste Makers Index, meanwhile, called recycling “at most, a marginal activity” – and with increasingly complex chemical compositions in plastics, the problem is only getting worse.

Industry’s strategic pivot

The fierce resistance to production limits stems from oil-producing nations’ strategic pivot toward plastics as traditional markets decline. For the fossil fuel industry and its partners, plastics offer a horizon for continued expansion even as power grids and vehicles shift to renewable energy. Petrochemicals and plastics are projected to become oil’s primary demand driver – accounting for half of consumption by 2050, according to IEA forecasts, with plastic production set to represent 20% of oil and gas output.

While Saudi Arabia led the fight against production caps in Busan, it’s part of a broader trend. Despite global pledges on climate and plastic pollution, major petrochemical investments continue across the Middle East, China, and the US, University of Lund research shows. For oil and gas producers, plastics offer a profitable sanctuary as clean energy expands. Petrochemicals yield higher margins than transport fuels – crucial as energy-sector fossil fuel demand wanes.

Lost in the battles in Busan were the positions of the world’s two largest plastic producers. Both China and the United States were notably absent when treaty advocates made their case for production limits on Sunday.

Though the US backed production cuts earlier this year, observers suggest this position is likely to shift following Donald Trump’s recent victory and pledges to continue expanding record levels of oil production. Beijing has put forth proposals to limit the use of harmful chemicals in plastics, but shown little interest in capping production.

Plastics lobbyists swarm talks

Plastic-producing nations were supported by an unprecedented industry presence at the UN talks. Fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists formed the largest single delegation, with 220 representatives. This group outnumbered both the European Union’s combined delegation and the host country South Korea’s representatives, according to analysis by the Center for International Environmental Law.

The industry’s efforts to shape the treaty have been extensive. Over 93% of statements opposing an ambitious treaty came from chemical and petrochemical sectors, with companies like ExxonMobil, Dow Inc, BASF, and SABIC leading efforts to weaken the agreement, according to a report released during the talks by InfluenceMap.

“Their strategy — lifted straight from the climate negotiations playbook — is designed to preserve the financial interests of countries and companies who are putting their fossil-fueled profits above human health, human rights, and the future of the planet,” said Delphine Levi Alvares, Global Petrochemical Campaign Manager at CIEL.

The industry’s aggressive presence at the talks reflects what’s at stake. Petrochemical companies increasingly see plastics as a safe haven from carbon regulations as demand for fossil fuels declines in other sectors.

This pivot to plastics production helps offset falling fuel demand, but threatens to dramatically increase plastic waste globally, research shows.

“There is little assurance that the next INC will succeed where INC-5 did not,” the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), representing local communities affected by plastic pollution, said in a statement. “There is a strong probability that the same petro-state minority will continue their obstructionist tactics and further imperil the plastics treaty process.”

Updated 3 December with added content on health sector plastics use.

Image Credits: Photo by Hermes Rivera on Unsplash, University of Oregon, UNEP, QPhia.