Why India, US, Petrostates Blocked Global Plastics Treaty at Geneva Talks

Ten days of closed-door informal negotiations and five plenary sessions of formal, open debates proved as inconclusive as the previous five sessions of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) talks that first started in 2022. There was nothing concrete to show; no consensus on even the scope of the treaty, its ambitions or even how discussions should proceed. What was on view was the same entrenched divisions, disappointments and disagreements.

During the negotiations--the longest of the six conducted so far--two draft treaties were presented by the Chair, an elected official who oversees the conduct of the negotiations. Both were rejected by powerful coalitions that held sway over the proceedings.

Entrenched divisions form

The inter-governmental negotiations began on March 2, 2022 after the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) adopted Resolution 5/14 to “End Plastic Pollution: Towards an International Legally Binding Instrument.” UNEA had estimated that 68% of plastic is landfilled or mismanaged, and nearly 23 million tonnes leaked into aquatic systems. The ambitious deadline set to solve these problems was 2024-end.

On one hand were a group calling themselves the High Ambition Coalition (HAC), comprising nearly 95 countries in Europe, Africa, Japan, Canada, Pacific Island nations and others. They call themselves “High Ambition” because their primary demand is to curb plastic production and prohibit certain types of plastics (“Chemicals of Concern”) entirely.

On the other side were a coalition calling themselves “Like-Minded Countries”, composed largely of oil and petrochemical-producing states such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Kuwait that sought to emphasise management of plastic waste rather than restrictions on plastic production. While not part of this second grouping, the United States too rejected any treaty that would cap plastic production.

In this stalemate, India has thrown its weight firmly behind the “Like-Minded Countries”, which is often termed the “Low-Ambition Coalition”.

On the final night of the latest negotiations--August 15--a draft treaty was released that was a significantly weakened version of what the HAC wanted. It sought entirely voluntary action by countries, lacked controls on production, imposed no restrictions on problematic and unnecessary products, and had no accountability mechanisms.

The HAC rejected this treaty. The LMCs saw even this text as a product of an “uninclusive process” that prevented them from talking about the “scope” of the treaty and prevented consensus over the “definitions” of plastics.

Delays and diversions as tactics

In many ways, the treaty on plastics mirrors global experiences with chalking out the 2015 Paris agreement--a legally-binding climate change treaty that sought to limit emissions. Broadly, negotiations were stuck between a coalition of developed countries in Europe, Japan, Canada and small island nations demanding strong, wide-ranging measures to curb emissions, and ‘developing countries’ who believed that restrictions would stifle their economic growth.

For the developing countries, a sticking point was that any restriction should come with a financial commitment from ‘historical polluters’--that is, developed countries of the West who benefited from the emissions in earlier decades should now compensate developing countries for curbs.

At the Global Plastics Treaty, India reiterated its position. “It is also important to recognise the historical contributions to the plastic pollution and in this light, as well as the respective capabilities of the nations, we emphasise that implementation of the treaty will be contingent on finance and means of implementation provided by the developed countries,” stated India at the Geneva session.

India is the third largest consumer of plastic globally, and the sector contributes more than $12 billion to the country’s economy. India’s stance on plastics has aligned with those of oil-extracting countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and Russia that will be hit the hardest if there are curbs in plastic production (plastic is after all made from crude oil).

These opposing views come to a head in closed-doors negotiation rooms where groups negotiate on specific items listed in the Chair’s Text, a document encapsulating points of discussion from previous negotiations.

For HACs, the primary objective was to curb plastic production by regulating plastic polymers and banning toxic chemicals. However, Like-Minded Countries, supported by India, refused to discuss any curbs until the “scope” of the treaty was agreed upon. For LMCs, scope of the treaty should be narrowed down only to focus on plastic pollution and “downstream” measures like recycling, reuse and safe disposal. The grouping demanded keeping out discussions of effects of human health due to plastics as it was beyond the mandate of plastic pollution.

“We are also deeply concerned that…Scope has not been given an equal and fair chance for discussion—not even in informal sessions—while other articles continue to receive repeated opportunities for debate,” said Iran on behalf of the LMC.

In its turn, the European Union refused to proceed with discussions on Finances (Article 11 of the Chair’s Text) until discussions on curbs on plastic production were completed. “More drama will happen,” said the Danish environment minister Magnus Heunicke in a press conference during the negotiations. He added: “The goal is for the drama to end up in a deal and lay the groundwork for years ahead.”

Sebastián Rodríguez, Colombia's delegate, was far more direct in apportioning blame at the closing plenary. “A vast majority of countries came with a constructive attitude, ready to demonstrate flexibility and readiness to find a solution. We have seen how negotiation was consistently blocked by a small number of states who simply don’t want an agreement. The result today is that after so much work…we are unable to deliver the treaty,” he said.

This was echoed by many in the Global North, who termed the negotiations as “Petrostates blocking a global plastics deal”. “A handful of obstructionist petrostates have warped the negotiation process, undermining multilateralism and preventing effective action,” said GAIA, a global alliance of over 1,000 grassroots groups, non-governmental organisations, and individuals.

But Uma Shankar Yedla, Legal Adviser (International Law) to the Indian government at these talks, highlighted the lack of discussion on finances as an example of the “unfair process”.

“Negotiations are a process of give and take. If developed countries are willing to provide technology transfer and financial support, the treaty talks could move forward,” said Yedla. “But they want to regulate plastic production in developing nations and expect them to buy acceptable alternatives from the developed world which has the capacity and funding to produce them. That is not fair.”

Without assistance, any financial burden due to the restrictions will fall on manufacturers and consumers of plastic in India, he said.

Without this financial mechanism, India argues, millions of workers could lose their livelihoods. There are over 30,000 plastic manufacturers in India that employ at least 4 million people. At least 1.5 million waste pickers are estimated to depend on the recycling industry.

Lack of consensus on how to reach consensus

It wasn’t just the scope of the treaty that LMCs wanted to discuss. They also challenged the fundamentals of how discussions could be conducted or decisions could be taken.

“There are delaying tactics being used since the talks in Paris (second round of negotiations, INC 2, in June 2023). Low Ambition Countries ask procedural questions, not just about the rules but the mandate of co-chairs and even their ability to produce a synthesised text,” said Alexandra Harrington, Chair of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)- World Commission on Environmental Law (WCEL) Agreement on Plastic Pollution Task Force. The task force comprises environmental and trade lawyers who provide insight and guidance on legal issues through the negotiations.

By not coming to a consensus on specifics, the number of “brackets” in the treaty document have increased. ‘Brackets’ within the text indicate that the matters have not been finalised: they are still up for discussion, debate and vote.

For instance, the Chair’s Text currently looks like this: “each party [shall] [should] take measures…to reduce or [where possible phase out] not allow the production and consumption of plastic products that meets…following criterias: Have a high likelihood of entering the environment and [causing pollution][existing waste management systems do not prevent such likelihood]; Pose an unacceptable risk to [human health or] the environment; … [Contain intentionally added microplastics in products that the Party has identified to pose a risk to the environment or to human health.]”

In effect the core of the treaty, that is, the type of plastic to be curbed and the nature of restrictions (whether these restrictions will be mandated on countries or left to them to implement) is still undecided.

“The number of brackets have gone from the 300s to 1000s,” quipped Rodríguez, the Colombian delegate on August 9.

Resolution of these “brackets” happens under rule 38 of the draft Rules of Procedures (ROP) that states that decisions on substantive matters must be made by consensus. That is, all parties need to agree on it. Failing this, the decision of a two-thirds majority vote will be accepted.

This rule is common in most UN-led negotiations, including the Conference of Parties (COP) negotiations on Climate Change. However, in the COP negotiations, this rule was “bracketed”, allowing for parties to question the rule if it was ever applied. In the global plastics treaty negotiations, this section of the RoP, which was provisionally accepted in 2023, was not “bracketed”. That is, countries, including LMCs and India, had “provisionally” accepted it then.

Friedor Jeske, co-founder of Thant Myanmar, an environmental conservation foundation, who has been tracking these negotiations closely, said issues with RoP appeared only when countries realised that the plastic treaty would not just be targeting handling of waste, but could also impose production caps. “Since then the debate has now become an endless cycle between calls for consensus and demands for a vote,” he said.

This has become a flashpoint between the HAC, whose view points are accepted by a “majority of countries”, and the “small set of countries” that form the LMC and its allies, but where nearly half the world’s population reside. This means that contentious issues such as regulation of problematic plastics and toxic chemicals can be included in the treaty as HAC has the votes.

Kathleen Lawand, legal adviser to the World Wide Fund (WWF) and a consultant on global issues and multilateral processes, said that these draft ROPs have legal effect even if they are provisionally agreed to. “Parties can question them. But they didn’t go about it the right way. If they want to change the rules, they should have made a formal proposal and given a 24-hour notice,” she said. “Ironically, the vote on whether these changes can be incorporated would be done through consensus.”

Yedla, the Indian government adviser, said the provisional Rules of Procedure were temporarily adopted “for the sake of continuing” negotiations. “We have not accepted it and we can object to it,” he said.

Economic interests shape India’s stance

As shown earlier in a two-part series on the evolution of India’s domestic plastic policy, the heart of India’s stance in the Global Plastics Treaty is its economic interest. Plastic plays a definite role in the economic and social development in the country, is India’s stated position.

India has maintained that its per capita consumption of plastic is just 15 kg, around half of the global average. Western Europe, which wants a more ambitious plastics treaty, has a per capita consumption of 150 kg.

“India is not like developed nations. The growth rate here will increase. Capping any sort of production of plastic will end up affecting food security (as plastic packaging is integral to prolong shelf lives of plastic goods) and our healthcare industry,” said Vijay Habbu, Adjunct Professor, Institute of Chemical Technology (ICT), who was part of the Indian industry group present at the negotiations. “The focus should be on the right thing. On placing barriers to ensure plastic doesn’t leak into the environment,” he said.

The ones who suffer

Plastic inevitably leaks.

What India decides will not just affect the country but also its neighbours. “In the monsoons, India’s plastic waste washes up on our shores. It ends up in beaches in tourist areas affecting our economy too,” K.R. Uduwawala, Secretary, Ministry of Environment in Sri Lanka told IndiaSpend at the conference.

Sri Lanka supports a strong plastic treaty that is globally binding, one that curbs production of plastics. This view is diametrically opposed to India’s at the negotiating table. “It is a transboundary problem and needs international support,” Uduwakala said.

Among the most disappointed with the stalemate between High-Ambition Countries and Like-Minded countries were small island developing nations. Large quantities of plastics flowing into the oceans from larger plastic-producing countries threaten livelihoods in the island nations, and their way of life.

“Our time was diverted by repeated entrenched positions. We must not entertain endless reiteration. Consensus is worth seeking if it moves us forward, not when it stalls the progress… We expect an instrument that reduces harm at source and repairs the damage already done,” said the delegate from Tuvalu, a Pacific island nation home to just 10,000 people, at the closing plenary.

The unclear road ahead

The impasse will be hard to surmount. "Multilateral treaty negotiations are incredibly difficult even under the best conditions, and the INC process has been far from that,” says Melissa Blue Sky, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “If countries hope to ever achieve a treaty that meaningfully addresses plastics pollution, they will either need to vote at the INC or take the negotiation elsewhere,” she said.

It remains unclear if, when and how the talks will proceed. No dates have been fixed, no roadmap laid out. The HAC is hopeful that a common voice can be found. “Tactics are tactics and part of the legislative process. Good faith might be back and countries might find a common landing ground,” Juan Carlos Navarro, Environment Minister of Panama and a leading voice within the HAC, told IndiaSpend in the run up to the final plenary session.

“Failing to reach the goal we set for ourselves may bring sadness, even frustration. Yet it should not lead to discouragement,” said INC Chair Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso. “It has not happened yet in Geneva, but I have no doubt that the day will come when the international community will unite its will and join hands to protect our environment and safeguard the health of our people.”

We welcome feedback. Please write to respond@indiaspend.org. We reserve the right to edit responses for language and grammar.