INSIGHT by the Center for International Environmental Law
196 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists have registered for the critical fourth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4) to advance a global plastics treaty.
A new analysis from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), in collaboration with the Indigenous Peoples Caucus, Greenpeace, the Break Free From Plastic movement, the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), the Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control (GGTC), and the Scientists’ Coalition for An Effective Plastics Treaty, is based on the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) provisional list of INC-4 participants.
Ninety-nine percent of plastics are derived from fossil fuels, and the fossil fuel industry continues to clutch plastics and petrochemicals as a lifeline. The 37% increase in lobbyists from INC-3 shows that the footprint of industry lobbyists is progressively increasing as calls for the treaty to address plastic production grow both inside and outside the negotiations.
The analysis finds that:
〉196 lobbyists for the fossil fuel and chemical industry registered for the plastics treaty talks, a 37% increase from the 143 lobbyists registered at INC-3.
〉Fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists outnumber the combined 180 representatives of the European Union delegations.
〉The total number of fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered is three times greater than the 58 independent scientists from the Scientists’ Coalition for An Effective Plastic Treaty and seven times greater than the 28 representatives of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus.
〉16 lobbyists for the fossil fuel and chemical industry registered across nine different country delegations, including four in Malaysia, three in Thailand, two in Iran and the Dominican Republic, and one each in China, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Turkey, and Uganda.
〉The fossil fuel and chemical industry registered more representatives than the smallest 87 country delegations combined.
〉The Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) collectively registered 73 representatives, meaning they are outnumbered more than two to one compared to the fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists.
While any accredited organization can register attendees, advocates are quick to point out power imbalances that favor industry lobbyists.
Have you already read?
IPSOS: 85% of people want global ban on single-use plastics
“The outcome of these talks is of critical importance to countries and communities around the world, and it is vital to expose and confront the role of corporations whose agendas are fundamentally in conflict with the global public interest. Access to the negotiations is just one piece of the puzzle,” says Delphine Levi Alvares, Global Petrochemical Campaign Coordinator at the Center for International Environmental Law.“Some may argue that everyone enjoys equal access, but that is simply not true. Lobbyists are appearing on country delegations and are gaining privileged access to Member State-only sessions, where sensitive discussions unfold behind closed doors. Beyond the troubling number of lobbyists present at the negotiation talks, behind-the-scenes industry lobbying activities and events take place around the world in the months leading up to negotiations.”
In Sunday’s UNEP-hosted meeting for Observers, Executive Secretary Inger Anderson highlighted that the groundswell of communities calling for a solution to plastic pollution helped create pressure to negotiate a treaty in the first place. And while the experiences of the frontline communities, Indigenous Peoples, independent scientists, and civil society are critical to the negotiations’ success, their participation faces enormous challenges. While industry once again enjoys access to the negotiations and surrounding environs, civil society representatives struggle to find funding, get their visas approved, and even if they make it to the negotiation, their ability to speak is not guaranteed.
Rachel Radvany, Environmental Health Campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law added, “The presence of actors in the room who are responsible for generating this crisis creates power imbalances that obstruct progress. Rights holders and civil society representatives will not sit silently while this happens. We are here representing the needs of communities and people from around the world who cannot be in these rooms. We are continuing to speak out to call for an end to corporate capture. We know that there are models for conflict of interest that work. We need to safeguard the negotiations and prioritize participation from Indigenous Peoples, frontline communities, independent scientists, and other rights holders. Our rights and the rights of future generations depend on it.”
The focus of INC-4 is to advance treaty text that will be ready for the final scheduled session (INC-5) in November. To accomplish this, negotiators must narrow potential options for provisions and make decisions on key issues. If we want to confront the triple planetary crisis, it is critical that the treaty addresses the full lifecycle of plastics, beginning with production.
Delphine Levi Alvares continues, “If we end up with a treaty that lets the plastics lobby continue business-as-usual, it will be because of a failure to safeguard the negotiations from their influence. UNEP and the INC Secretariat’s inaction has created the conditions for corporate influence to further tip an already inequitable representation.”
| All opinions expressed are those of the author and/or quoted sources. investESG.eu is an independent and neutral platform dedicated to generating debate around ESG investing topics.
