220+ industry lobbyists shape plastic pollution treaty talks, raising concerns
Over 99% of plastic is made from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels, and the fossil fuel and plastic industries are deeply connected
New Delhi: Around 220 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists are participating in the ongoing negotiations in Busan, South Korea, to develop a global legally binding instrument on phasing out plastic pollution, a new analysis has shown, which also flagged concerning “reports of intimidation and interference” from industry representatives.
The analysis, based on the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) provisional list of Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) participants, found that at 220, INC-5 has the highest number of lobbyists registered to attend the negotiations. At INC-4, 196 lobbyists were identified.
Over 99% of plastic is made from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels, and the fossil fuel and plastic industries are deeply connected, according to the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), which conducted the analysis with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), the Break Free From Plastic movement, and the Global Alliance for Incinerators Alternatives (GAIA) among others.
“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,” CIEL said.
Chemical and fossil fuel industry lobbyists also outnumber the Scientists’ Coalition for An Effective Plastic Treaty by three to one, and the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus by almost nine to one.
“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,” CIEL said.
“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,” said Delphine Levi Alvares, Global Petrochemical Campaign Coordinator at CIEL said in a statement.
“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-fuelled 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,” she added.
The International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD) which is tracking the negotiations said observers called for a freeze and phaseout of primary production to reduce plastic waste, underlined the importance of global extended producer responsibility (EPR) measures and the need to prohibit burning plastic waste and toxic chemical recycling, among others.
Before embarking on textual negotiations, the co-chairs clarified that this would be a paragraph-by-paragraph exercise. Some parties called for line-by-line negotiations, noting that many states had already indicated their preferences for this part.
The group initiated a line-by-line negotiation on plastic waste management. Some delegations preferred that each party shall take measures “based on common but differentiated responsibilities”.
This qualification was opposed by a number of delegations, while one also underlined that all measures proposed need to consider “national circumstances and capabilities”.
Money was a central concern for delegates as they met on the third day of the fifth session of the INC-5 to develop an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, IISD said.
The other big-ticket item that held delegates’ attention was technical. “Which products and chemicals could be regulated by the new treaty? How will design standards for plastic products be handled? How will the treaty address plastic production and supply issues?”
There was much disagreement and debate during the plenary on day 3 over progress made.
Panama’s negotiator wrote on X: “Panama’s delegation at the Plastic Treaty negotiations in Busan is deeply frustrated by the lack of progress after three days. Microplastics have been found even in the bloodstreams of our newborns. What more evidence does the world need to act?”
India’s negotiator, Naresh Pal Gangwar, said the non-paper presented by the chair of INC 5 on day 1 doesn’t have articles on “principles” and “scope” of the legally binding treaty.
“You are aware that landing zones have been created and they have to be put in practice in letter and spirit. During plenary on first day, we have been told that the non-paper doesnt include articles on scope and principles. These will provide foundation for the legally binding treaty.”
Fiji’s negotiator also said it is “unfortunate that we have not made progress, its disastrous for countries at frontline of plastic pollution crisis”, and added: “Lets engage on main ideas of text instead of procedural semantics.”