Issues in the spotlight: Luis Bayas Valdivieso, Chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Commission on Plastic Pollution. Photo: Anthony Wallace/AFP
Fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists made up the largest combined delegation at this week's plastics deal negotiations in Busan, South Korea, a new analysis has found.
The findings, released Wednesday by the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel), reveal that 221 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists have registered to participate in INC-5, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution. It became.
This is the highest number in any plastics treaty negotiation that Siel has analyzed to date. A record 196 lobbyists were confirmed at Ottawa's INC-4 in April.
The analysis is based on the United Nations Environment Programme's tentative list of INC-5 participants and comes midway through the final negotiations expected to finalize a global plastics agreement.
In 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly began a two-year process to develop the first legally binding global treaty of its kind, addressing the entire lifecycle of plastics, from production to disposal.
INC-5 will be the fifth and final round of negotiations.
The figure of 221 lobbyists is likely conservative. This methodology relies on participants in negotiations disclosing their ties to fossil fuel and chemical industry interests, and some lobbyists may choose not to disclose their ties. No,” the nonprofit environmental law group said. Said.
For the analysis, Siel collaborated with Greenpeace, the Free Plastics Movement, the International Pollutant Elimination Network, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, the Environmental Research Agency, the Union of Scientists for an Effective Plastics Treaty, and other civil society organizations. We collaborated with groups.
“Influence on the industry”
They called on Congress to “protect the negotiation process from industry influence” and to implement strong conflict of interest policies to “prevent plastics treaty negotiations from reaching a stalemate similar to that seen in climate change negotiations.” .
Fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists combined make up the “single largest delegation” at INC-5, significantly outnumbering host South Korea's 140 delegates, according to Ciel's analysis.
The number of lobbyists exceeds the 191 delegates of the EU and all its member states combined, the 89 representatives of the Pacific Small Island Developing States delegation, and the 165 delegates of Latin American and Caribbean countries. There is.
The analysis identified 16 lobbyists from national delegations including China, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Finland, Iran, Kazakhstan and Malaysia. Dow (5 companies) and ExxonMobil (4 companies) were among the “most prominent fossil fuel and chemical companies with large numbers of lobbyists” attending the meeting.
Similarly, lobbyists for the chemical and fossil fuel industries outnumber the United Scientists for an Effective Plastics Treaty by a 3-to-1 margin and the Indigenous Peoples Caucus by nearly 9-to-1.
“While we have seen an increasing number of fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lobbyists in each INC, efforts to influence future treaties go far beyond the negotiations themselves,” the groups said. Ta.
“Intimidation, including allegations that industry representatives intimidated independent scientists participating in negotiations and that industry pressured national delegations to replace technical experts with pro-industry representatives; Reports of interference have surfaced.
“Undue influence”
of email and guardian has been raised by a civil society coalition comprising WWF South Africa, Groundwork South Africa and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, which says the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment has an unfair influence on plastics and chemicals. I reported my concerns. Industry participation in global plastic pollution convention delegations and national policy activities.
The federation said Plastics SA, which describes itself as the voice of South Africa's plastics industry, “continues to increase its access and visibility” with the government.
The coalition said it was important for the plastics industry to participate in national consultations on the treaty, “however, the plastics industry's influence on South Africa's position should be limited.”
It cited “vested industry interests and conflicts of interest'' that are directly related to the plastic pollution crisis.
This limited influence has been “unchecked” by recent changes and the new appointment of a South African delegation to INC-5.
“There are growing concerns that hitherto progressive technical experts have been replaced by experts more closely aligned with the petrochemical industry's positions,” the coalition said.
Additionally, Mr. Thokozani Masilela, Director of Plastics at the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Competition and Vice-Chairman of Plastics SA, was part of the country's delegation to INC-3, INC-4 and is currently serving as INC-5. .
Both Plastics SA and the ministry strongly deny any allegations of improper conduct or conflicts of interest, saying neither Plastics SA nor the broader industry has preferential access to SA INC's delegation or government officials. said.
“[Masilela] He is participating in the South African delegation as a government official,” ministry spokesperson Peter Mbelengwa said. “Both civil society organizations and the plastics industry/companies will have equal access to engage with the South African delegation before and during the INC session.”
He said how stakeholders view the treaty does not automatically translate into South Africa's negotiating position. The Constitution, the National Environmental Management Act, and other laws “guide interests and inform positions.”
“The role of the department and other government departments is to listen to and consider the full range of views from all stakeholders when communicating South Africa’s position.
“In areas where the department does not agree with any of our stakeholders, the department will always clarify through explanations and strong engagement. The department represents all sectors of society, including vulnerable groups.”
harmful effects
The harmful effects of plastic permeate every stage of its life cycle, Andrés del Castillo, a senior lawyer at Ciel, wrote last week. Plastic recycling rates are below 10%, and downstream measures are “wholly inadequate” to tackle the crisis.
“The solution must start from the roots. We need a treaty that puts a cap on plastic production…A treaty that fails to limit the sources of plastic production will not only fail in its obligations to eliminate plastic pollution; It will destroy humanity at a critical juncture. To meaningfully address this crisis, global reduction targets must be combined with ambitious and binding national commitments.”
Ahead of INC-5, members of the World Plastics Council and the World Plastics Alliance called on the South African government to “work together to secure a treaty to end plastic pollution”.
A final agreement forged in Busan “needs to strike the right balance” between global obligations and national measures. “Countries should be required to develop national action plans to enable them to deploy tailored solutions that are most effective for their own circumstances.”
They are calling for “ambitious and workable agreements that dramatically expand waste management and recycling.”
“Each country faces very different challenges and requires different solutions,” said Benny Mirmans, president of the World Plastics Council and head of sustainability at Chevron Phillips Chemical, a polymer and petrochemical company. Vice President) said in a statement.
“A one-size-fits-all global approach to policy and regulation will not work, so this treaty should provide flexibility to achieve its objectives in the way that makes the most sense for countries and regions.”
Anton Hanekom, Executive Director of Plastics SA, said: “Incorporating circularity throughout the entire lifecycle of plastics, from design to recycling and responsible disposal, and developing fit-for-purpose waste management systems should be fundamental,” the agreement states. ”
The most effective way to achieve the objectives of the agreement while preserving the utility that plastics provide is to “turn plastic waste into a commodity with real value.”
“Interference, distraction, and misinformation.”
Delphine Levi Alvarez, Ciel's Global Petrochemical Campaign Coordinator, said: “From the moment the gavel fell on Unea-5.2 until now, we have seen industry lobbyists surround negotiations with the sadly familiar tactics of obstruction, distraction, and intimidation.” information. ”
The strategy is “taken straight from a climate change negotiation playbook” and aims to protect the economic interests of countries and companies that “prioritize fossil fuel profits over human health, human rights, and the future of the planet.” He said it was aimed at.
She said the obligation under the Plastics Convention was very clear: to end plastic pollution. “A growing body of evidence from independent scientists, frontline communities and indigenous peoples clearly shows that this cannot be achieved without reducing plastic production.”
A recent study conducted by the London-based Environmental Research Agency identified four themes adopted by industry lobbies regarding the Plastics Treaty.
They had an “extraordinary presence” in the global plastics treaty negotiations. Promoting false solutions or unproven techniques. Promotion of industry-funded scientific research and research, and lobbying of domestic governments.
“Corporate lobbying strategies are deployed in full force to undermine effective measures and further limit industry participation in this process and access to decision makers for major polluters. “We call for further scrutiny,” the report said.
Alvarez added that the plastics industry is focusing on downstream measures such as waste management and recycling, rather than capping plastic production. It is clear that there is an even greater temptation to actually keep the focus on things that seem easy but are consistent with commercial interests. ”
