220 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists have registered to participate in the fifth and final scheduled session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to advance a Global Plastics Treaty. The negotiation is expected to develop and deliver the final text of the future treaty.
Global Plastics Treaty: stuffed with petrochemical lobbyists
A new analysis from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) — supported by International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Plastics (IIPFP), the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), the Break Free From Plastic movement, the Global Alliance for Incinerators Alternatives (GAIA), Greenpeace, the Stop Tobacco Pollution Alliance (STPA), the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, and the Uproot Plastics Coalition (Korea) — and based on the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) provisional list of INC-5 participants, finds that:
- 220 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists are registered to attend INC-5, the highest at any negotiation for the plastics treaty so far analysed by CIEL, more than the previous high of 196 lobbyists identified at INC-4.
- Fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists taken together would be the largest single delegation at INC-5, significantly outnumbering the host Republic of Korea’s 140 representatives. Lobbyists also outnumber the delegations from the European Union and all of its Member States combined (191) as well as the 89 representatives from Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) more than two to one and 165 delegates from the whole Latin American and Caribbean region (GRULAC), respectively.
- 17 lobbyists were identified in national delegations, including those from China, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Finland, Iran, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Peru.
- Dow (5) and ExxonMobil (4) were among the best-represented fossil fuel and chemical companies with numerous lobbyists attending the talks.
- Chemical and fossil fuel industry lobbyists outnumber the Scientists’ Coalition for An Effective Plastic Treaty by three to one, and the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus by almost nine to one.
Lobbying leaders, pressuring countries
With each INC, we have seen an increase in the number of fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lobbyists, but the efforts to effect the future treaty extend well beyond the negotiations themselves. Reports of intimidation and interference have surfaced, including allegations of industry representatives intimidating independent scientists participating in the negotiations and pressure on country delegations by industry to replace technical experts with industry-friendly representatives.
While civil society organisations, independent scientists, and rights holders face significant financial and logistical barriers to participation, the fossil fuel and chemicals industry mobilises significant financial and human resources not only to influence negotiations, but also to privately lobby leaders and discreetly back positions held by petrostate allies who openly defend their shared financial interests.
“From the moment the gavel came down at UNEA-5.2 to now, we have watched industry lobbyists surrounding the negotiations with sadly well-known tactics of obstruction, distraction, intimidation, and misinformation,” says Delphine Levi Alvares, Global Petrochemical Campaign Manager at the Center for International Environmental Law:
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. The mandate for this treaty is very clear: ending plastic pollution. Ever-growing evidence from independent scientists, frontline communities, and Indigenous Peoples clearly shows that this won’t be achieved without reducing plastic production. The choice is clear — our lives or their bottom line.
Apparently, society benefits from plastics
Pro-plastic rhetoric was on full display in the lead up to and during the early days of INC-5’s Global Plastics Treaty negotiations, with key industry associations trumpeting the ‘massive societal benefits of plastics’ and Member States claiming ‘the sovereign right to exploit resources of states’.
However, the numbers tell a different story: plastic production accounts for a mere 0.6% (USD 627 billion) of the global economy, and reducing our dependence on plastics is unlikely to impact economic growth.
Hellen Kahaso Dena, Project Lead for Pan-African Plastics Project at Greenpeace Africa said:
The growing number of fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists in these talks shows a continuous attempt to block progress, water down the treaty ambition and push for a weaker agreement. Member states should not let a small minority dictate the future of our generation and that of the planet. The time to act is now! Member states must step up and deliver a treaty that will cut plastic production and drive an equitable transition for workers and the health of the most affected communities.
Ahead of INC-5, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights acknowledged that plastic pollution is incompatible with the enjoyment of the right to development and the right to a healthy environment.
“Plastic markets are already oversupplied. The world simply cannot afford to continue producing more plastics as a means of sustaining fossil fuel dependency ” says Daniela Duran Gonzalez, Senior Legal Campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law:
Shrinking demand, closing facilities, diminishing profit margins — expanding plastic production is bad business. If Member States are truly committed to fair and equitable development they would support mandatory rules to reduce production, starting with a halt to the construction of new production facilities. This is a moment for courage — for our economy, our planet, our climate, and the rights of present and future generations.
A Global Plastics Treaty free from lobbying
What’s transpired at Global Plastics Treaty talks is not dissimilar to what we’ve observed at recent biological diversity and climate talks. Once again, industry-friendly actors are working to infiltrate the process and delay substantive progress.
Graham Forbes, Greenpeace Head of Delegation to the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations and Global Campaign Lead for Greenpeace USA, said:
The analysis exposes a desperate industry willing to sacrifice our planet and poison our children to protect its profits. Fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists, aided by a handful of member states, must not dictate the outcome of these critical negotiations. The moral, economic, and scientific imperatives are clear: by the end of the week, member states must deliver a Global Plastics Treaty that prioritises human health and a livable planet over CEO payouts. The global majority demands a strong agreement that cuts plastic production and ends single-use plastics.
“We cannot let industry-friendly tactics derail and delay these negotiations like they’ve been able to do in other multilateral spaces,” concludes Rachel Radvany, Environmental Health Campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law. “Countries must seize this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and use every tool at their disposal to prevent obstructionism and end corporate capture of this negotiation. We must secure a treaty that includes strong conflict of interest protections, lobbying disclosures, and prevent vested interests from influencing the implementation of the agreement.”
Featured image via INC-5
