2024
Webinars, What’s new
Plastics Treaty Negotiations: Who has a seat at the table?
At the end of November, delegates from around the world will convene in Busan, South Korea for the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to draft a global, legally binding treaty on plastics. This is the final scheduled negotiating session before the adoption of the treaty's final text, expected in early 2025.
Concerns are rising among Indigenous Peoples, frontline communities, scientists, and other representatives of civil society about the involvement of the fossil fuel and chemical industries, whose interests are in direct conflict with treaty objectives. An analysis of INC-4 participants found that fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists outnumbered the combined 180 representatives of the European Union delegations: “Lobbyists are appearing on country delegations and are gaining privileged access to Member State-only sessions, where sensitive discussions unfold behind closed doors.”
In collaboration with CHE-Alaska, we hosted a panel discussion with Frankie Orona, Yuyun Ismawati, and Dr. Martin Wagner to discuss these concerns. Each panelist brought unique perspectives, but the overarching message was the same: industry lobbyists have been given too much access to these negotiations, while those who are most affected, knowledgeable, and invested in solutions have struggled to get a seat at the table.
Barriers to access
Ismawati, who co-chairs the International Pollution Elimination Network (IPEN) and also co-founded the Indonesian public interest group Nexus3 Foundation, spoke of her experience representing a public interest NGO. IPEN works with civil society groups and local communities in the Global South to ensure their voices and concerns are heard at the negotiations. She cited several unusual restrictions limiting the network’s ability to participate:
- Only a limited number of people are allowed to be registered under a given organization.
- Members of IPEN were excluded from speaking at regional meetings. Their ability to raise questions at the meetings has been limited.
- At intersessional meetings, even fewer participants and observers outside of government and industry have been included. By defining intersessional meetings as “informal,” much of the important work of the negotiations has been moved behind closed doors, outside of the regular stakeholder process.
This is in contrast to most other negotiations of this kind, which in Ismawati’s experience have not had these kinds of restrictions.
Wagner brought his experience as a concerned scientist and member of the Scientists Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty to the discussion. He highlighted that there has been no official route for scientists to participate in the negotiations. In the UN system, universities are considered government entities. Since the governments are already participating, representatives from universities would be considered extra governmental participants. As a result, scientists who wanted to participate had to find alternative organizations to register with as observers.
Orona, speaking as an Indigenous representative and an advocate of front-line and fence-line communities, stated bluntly that he does not feel that those he represents have been given a seat at the table. He cited a number of barriers to meaningful participation:
- Limited access to the resources necessary to participate
- Tokenistic inclusion
- Language and cultural barriers
- Lack of recognition of Indigenous and traditional knowledge
- Uneven power dynamics between those disproportionately impacted and government and industry in the negotiations
Orona stressed that participating in the process of making decisions which will affect one’s life and environment is a fundamental human right. The people who will be most impacted by this treaty are the ones whose voices, knowledge, and lived experiences should be central to these negotiations. Instead, they are being excluded.
Conflicts of interest
All of the panelists voiced concerns about conflicts of interest for many participants who do have a seat at the table. In some cases, petrochemical industry lobbyists are participating as official members of their national delegations. These lobbyists have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and have been actively undermining efforts to include ambitious goals in the binding treaty.
In contrast, those who are experiencing the brunt of the damage from the fossil fuel and chemical industries are being overshadowed by corporate representatives. Orona spoke about the central role that advocates like these panelists need to have in the authorship of this treaty:
“It's absolutely critical for us to be in those rooms and at those tables to create the uncomfortability that we create, because we rehumanize these discussions.”
Priorities in Busan & beyond
Over 2,000 government officials and observers are expected to gather in Busan from November 25 – December 1 to, hopefully, finalize a binding plastics treaty. At the conclusion of INC-4, many issues remained unresolved. Going into INC-5, it is unclear what treaty goals will be achieved in Busan. A “high ambition” treaty would address the entire plastic lifecycle, from extraction of fossil fuels to product manufacture, use, and disposal.
The panelists highlighted key elements that they hope the final treaty will include:
- Significant curbs to production (such as 30% by 2040)
- Progress toward eliminating and banning toxic chemicals
- Transparency in product ingredients
- Mechanisms to address the legacy of plastic pollution
- Protections for human health and the environment
- Recognition of the humanity and rights of Indigenous, front-line, and fence-line communities
As Orono noted in the discussion wrapup, civil society engagement in the treaty has been critical to the process, despite the many hurdles, and has resulted in a stronger agreement than we would have otherwise seen. He noted that this commitment will continue into the implementation phase of the treaty after INC-5:
“Regardless of the political environment, we will continue to be here to fight for the most beneficial future that we can for our children and our children’s children.”
To find out more about the treaty process and issues that have been addressed at previous INCs, see recordings of our webinars below, as well as the our Science Snippet featuring Dr. Phil Landrigan and our August blog: A Roadmap to Better Policy for Plastic Chemicals.
"CHE Science Snippet" Webinar Preview
- Petrochemicals, Plastics & Health: Will global treaty offer pathway to progress? (April, 2024)
- The Realities of Chemical Recycling and the Plastic Pollution Crisis (February, 2024)
- Plastics & Environmental Justice: What's Next for the Global Treaty? (November, 2023)
- Will the Global Plastics Treaty Address Toxic Chemicals? (May, 2023)
This organizational blog was produced by CHE's Science Writer, Matt Lilley.
