Fox in the henhouse? Civil society and environmental groups criticize petrochemical presence at UN plastic treaty talks

28 Nov 2022 --- With the UN’s global plastic treaty negotiations underway in Uruguay, civil society groups, Indigenous Peoples and other stakeholders are criticizing the presence of major plastics producers present at an official forum held to prepare advice on the key talking points and actions the negotiations should be targeting. 

A number of parties participated in roundtable discussions at the forum to deliver a report to the UN’s International Negotiating Committee, which will bring delegates from member states together to form a legally binding treaty on addressing plastic pollution. 

However, many nongovernmental organizations like the UK’s environmental investigation agency (EIA) – involved in the forum – say the attendance of plastics industry players “sets a concerning precedent for the negotiations to come,” and that the UN should not allow “the very companies that are driving the harms caused by plastic pollution to have an equal seat at the table.”

Neil Tangri, science and policy director at Global Alliance for Incineration Alternatives, says the concept of the multi-stakeholder forum is flawed from the outset.

“[The forum] is aimed at finding common ground between environmental justice groups, waste pickers, public health professionals, environmentalists and the very companies that are the source of the problem: the petrochemical industry.” 

“That is a recipe for failure. Instead, the treaty process should follow the precedent of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which excluded the tobacco industry from its negotiations. The plastics petrochemical industry is not part of the solution, it is the problem,” says Tangri. 

Waste pickers demand their role in solving plastic pollution issues is respected in the talks.Workers’ rights “tokenized” 
Meanwhile, Soledad Mella, communications secretary at Asociación Nacional de Recicladores de Chile, stresses that the negotiations must include considerations of waste pickers who work informally collecting plastic trash. 

“On behalf of the more than 20,000 waste pickers we represent, the equitable participation of civil society is critical to developing a treaty that addresses the human impact of plastic pollution,” she says. 

“People on the frontline, such as waste pickers, are essential to identifying real solutions to this crisis and it is critical that their participation is not symbolic. We need a participatory and accessible process where those most affected can access translation and interpretation, equitable participation in person, less communication gaps and have the opportunity to help shape the agenda so that this process is truly binding and not what we are seeing today.”

Kabir Arora, Asian outreach coordinator at International Alliance of Waste Pickers India, also voices concern that the invite for workers’ groups to attend the forum could merely be a guise of representation. 

“Those at the frontlines of plastic production, recycling and disposal are essential in identifying real solutions to this crisis, and it is critical that their participation is not tokenized,” he says.

“We need a meaningful and accessible process where those most impacted can access translation and interpretation, have equitable access to in-person participation and have the opportunity to help shape the agenda for future multi-stakeholder forums.”

Indigenous rights 
Minority rights groups are also concerned the inequality impacted by plastic pollution on their communities will not be properly addressed at the negotiations. Frankie Orona, executive director at the Society of Native Nations USA, says: 

“Indigenous people, original people of the lands, and communities of color must have an equitable voice and a seat in today’s discussions on how to deal with the negative impacts of plastics in the petrochemical industry. Inequality has existed in the UN for too long, and change needs to happen now if we truly want to ensure a healthy, suitable transition for the next generation.”

“We are tired of having our communities deemed a sacrifice zone and having people make decisions for communities they never visit or know how to understand the hardship and suffering in indigenous and communities of color,” he says.Critics say allowing plastic producers into pollution treaty talks will unvermine the process.

Recently, a district court in Louisiana, US revoked environmental permits from a planned plastic production facility that would have been one of the world’s largest producers of PE, PP and ethanol glycol. Dubbed the “sunshine project,” the site was to be located within the region’s “cancer alley” – an 86-mile stretch of the Mississippi River that accounts for 25% of the nation’s petrochemical production. 

Cancer Alley runs through majority Black communities, whose citizens see the chemical use of local land and its impact on their communities as an extension of the exploitation that began under slavery. 

Sideshow or substance? 
Moreover, Christina Dixon, ocean campaign leader at EIA, says the irony of plastics corporations easily attending the forum is nothing new. 

“We’ve seen yet again challenges with access for this meeting while those companies bankrolling the plastics crisis are able to show up in force. We need to learn from other environmental processes where industry has been able to distract and derail the agenda while continuing business as usual,” she says.

“For the Global Plastics Treaty to be effective, we need meaningful engagement of impacted communities, rather than costly sideshows designed to restrict participation away from substance.”

Christopher Chin, executive director at The Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research, and Education in the US, also says the UN must address conflicts of interest immediately for the negotiations to be effective. 

“In order to consider, develop, explore and begin deploying truly effective and encompassing solutions, the proverbial fox must be removed from the henhouse, and we must have industry and industry-sponsored entities excluded from the process.”

By Louis Gore-Lanton