Spoiler alert
As the final round of the plastics treaty negotiations kicks off in Busan, the rule-making majority will have to defy one of the most entrenched dogmas of environmental diplomacy: Conclude the treaty, even if that means leaving the spoilers behind.
For the uninitiated, it may seem like a no-brainer: If a large majority of countries agree on a set of rules to tackle a shared problem, they would simply seal the deal and implement those rules. Wouldn’t they? Not so, sadly, in the bizarre world of multilateral environmental diplomacy.
For decades, the planet and its inhabitants have suffered from the misguided notion that global deals can only be made as long as no country objects. With nearly 200 states in the world — several led by individuals of rather questionable character — the failure of the international community to deal with climate change and ecological collapse should, therefore, come as no surprise. There will always be a naysayer or five, refusing to go along.
Multilateral environmental diplomacy is rigged for inaction. Ever since the UN Environment Assembly launched negotiations on a treaty to “end plastic pollution” in March 2022, the process has, sadly, been no exception. Through cunning and trickery, negotiators from a few oil and plastic producing countries have deprived the rule-making majority of much-needed negotiation time and sowed confusion and division within their ranks.
Confident in their power to veto any decision of substance, these countries have — again and again and again and again — thrown the negotiations into chaos. Tragically, in the distorted logic of consensus-only diplomacy, the spoiler tends to hold the reins.
But as the two-year negotiation process approaches its grand finale in Busan, there are signs that the spoiler countries may have overplayed their hand. Through their incessant points of orders and repeated requests for concessions, they have disrupted the process to such an extent that few — if any — believe that they will ever agree a set of rules to tackle plastic pollution. “Bad faith” has been muttered in the corridors, on more than one occasion.
This leaves the rule-making majority with one option only, bar total failure: Press on and conclude the treaty without them.
Indeed, in the run-up to the meeting in Busan, ambitious countries have ramped up their mobilisation for a set of proposals to ban and phase out high-risk plastic products and chemicals. The idea of prohibiting the plastic products that are most likely to end up in the environment as harmful pollution is, of course, unacceptably radical only in the eyes of the most ardent defenders of the petrochemical industry.
For everybody else — including the 260 members of the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty — the need for these rules is self-evident. In addition to the 67 countries that form part of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution and the 37 other countries that have already called for global product bans, there are signs that big plastic producers, including the United States and China, see where the wind is blowing and are looking to these proposals with growing interest.
In fact, the countries opposing plastic product bans account for only six percent of global plastic consumption — a sliver of the global market. These bans, if adopted by the rule-making majority, will reshape the global market and render the prohibited products as bad for business as they are for the environment, whether the spoilers get on board or not.
Adding to the spoilers’ worries, the chair of the committee, Ambassador Luis Vayas of Ecuador, is showing a strong resolve to usher the process forward. His plan for the Busan round of talks promises to deliver a treaty by 2 December, placing the countries working to prevent this outcome under significant time pressure.
While the spoilers will no doubt try to block the conclusion of a treaty text, the rule-making majority will have no incentive to let them. As such, the final round of the plastics treaty negotiations looks set to reach a breaking point — a point where the rule-making majority makes it clear that they are ready to move ahead without the spoilers.
If so, the plastics treaty could serve as a powerful reminder of a fundamental yet frequently overlooked principle of the international legal system: Spoilers can disrupt and delay, but they cannot, ultimately, override the sovereign right of nations to forge agreements.
