Fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists together accounted for the largest delegation at this week’s plastics treaty negotiations in Busan, in South Korea, new analysis has found.
The findings, which the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel) released on Wednesday, revealed that 221 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists are registered to attend INC-5 — the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on plastic pollution.
This is the highest number at any negotiation for the plastics treaty that Ciel has analysed so far. The previous high of 196 lobbyists was identified at INC-4 in Ottawa in April.
The analysis, based on the UN Environment Programme’s provisional list of INC-5 participants, comes midway in the final negotiations, during which a global plastics treaty is expected to be finalised.
In 2022, the UN Environment Assembly launched a two-year process to establish a first-of-its-kind, legally binding global treaty that would address the full life cycle of plastics from production to disposal.
INC-5 marks the fifth and final round of negotiations.
The figure of 221 lobbyists is likely to be conservative because the methodology relies on delegates at the talks disclosing their ties to fossil fuel or chemical industry interests, and some lobbyists “may choose not to disclose their connection”, the non-profit environmental law organisation said.
For its analysis, Ciel collaborated with Greenpeace, the Break Free From Plastic movement, the International Pollutants Elimination Network, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, the Environmental Investigation Agency and the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, among other civil society groups.
They called on the assembly “to safeguard the negotiating process from industry influence” and to implement strong conflict of interest policies “so that the plastics treaty negotiations do not become the same kind of stalemate” seen in climate negotiations.
Ciel’s analysis showed fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists, taken together, would be the “largest single delegation” at INC-5, significantly outnumbering the 140 representatives from host South Korea.
Lobbyists also outnumber the delegations from the EU and all of its member states combined (191) as well as the 89 delegation representatives from the Pacific Small Island Developing States and the 165 from Latin American and Caribbean countries.
The analysis identified 16 lobbyists in national delegations, including those from China, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Finland, Iran, Kazakhstan and Malaysia. Dow (5) and ExxonMobil (4) were among the “best-represented fossil fuel and chemical companies with numerous lobbyists” attending the talks.
Similarly, chemical and fossil fuel industry lobbyists outnumber the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics 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,” the groups said.
“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.”
The Mail & Guardian has reported on concerns raised by a civil society coalition composed of, among others, WWF South Africa, groundWork South Africa and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, that the department of forestry, fisheries and the environment has given undue influence to the plastics and chemical industries in its global plastic pollution treaty delegation and in national policy work.
According to the coalition, Plastics SA, which describes itself as the mouthpiece of South Africa’s plastic industry, “continues to have increased access and visibility” with the government.
The coalition said that it is important for the plastics industry to participate in the national consultation for the treaty, “however, their influence over the South African position should be limited”.
It cited “conflict of interest given the industry’s vested interests and their profits”, which are directly linked to the plastic pollution crisis.
This limited influence has “not been kept in check”, with recent changes and new appointments in South Africa’s delegation to INC-5.
“There is growing concern that previously progressive technical experts have been replaced with experts more aligned with the petrochemical industry position,” the coalition said.
It has also emerged that Thokozani Masilela, the director of plastics at the department of trade, industry and competition — who is also the deputy chairperson of Plastics SA — was on the country’s delegation to INC-3, INC-4 and is now, for INC-5.
Both Plastics SA and the department strongly denied allegations of improper behaviour or conflict of interest and said that neither Plastics SA nor the broader industry has had preferential access to the SA INC delegation or to government officials.
“[Masilela] participates in the South Africa INC delegation as a government official,” said Peter Mbelengwa, the department’s spokesperson. “Both civil society groups and plastics industry/business have equal access to engage the South African delegation prior and during the INC sessions.”
How stakeholders view the treaty does not automatically translate into South Africa’s negotiating position, he said. The Constitution, National Environment Management Act and other pieces of legislation “guide the interest and inform the position”.
“The role of the department and other government departments is to listen and consider all the views of all stakeholders in informing the South African position.
“In areas where the department does not agree with any of the stakeholders, the department always makes it clear through explanation and robust engagement. The department represents all sectors of the society, including the vulnerable.”
Plastic’s toxic impact permeates every stage of its life cycle, Andrés Del Castillo, a senior attorney at the Ciel, wrote last week. With plastic recycling rates below 10%, downstream measures are “wholly inadequate” to address this crisis.
“The solution must begin at the source. We need a treaty that caps plastic production … A treaty that fails to limit plastic production at its source will not only fall short of its mandate to end plastic pollution, it will fail humanity at a critical juncture. To meaningfully address this crisis, a global reduction target must be paired with ambitious, binding national commitments.”
Ahead of INC-5, the World Plastics Council and Global Plastics Alliance members called on the South African government “to help secure a treaty to end plastics pollution”.
The final agreement shaped in Busan “should strike the right balance” between global obligations and national measures. “It should require countries to develop national action plans so they can deploy tailored solutions most effective for their circumstances.”
They are pushing for an “ambitious and implementable agreement that dramatically scales up waste management and recycling”.
“Countries face very different challenges and require different solutions,” World Plastics Council chairperson Benny Mermans, who is the vice president of sustainability at Chevron Phillips Chemical, which provides polymers and petrochemical products, said in a statement.
“A one-size-fits-all global approach to policy and regulation cannot work. The treaty should therefore provide each country and region with the flexibility to meet the objectives of the agreement in ways which make most sense for them.”
Anton Hanekom, the executive director of Plastics SA, said: “Building circularity into the entire life cycle of plastics — from design to recycling to responsible end-of-life —and developing fit-for-purpose waste management systems, should be the cornerstone of the agreement.”
The most effective way to achieve the objectives of the agreement, while maintaining the utility that plastics offer, is “to make plastic waste a commodity with real value”.
Delphine Levi Alvares, the global petrochemical campaign coordinator at the 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.”
This 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, she said.
The mandate for the plastics treaty is very clear — ending plastic pollution, she said. “Ever-growing evidence from independent scientists, frontline communities and indigenous peoples clearly shows that this won’t be achieved without reducing plastic production.”
Recent research conducted by the London-based Environmental Investigation Agency identified four themes employed by the industry lobby vis-à-vis the plastics treaty.
These were an “outsized presence” at the global plastics treaty negotiations; the promotion of false solutions and unproven technologies; the promotion of industry-funded scientific research and studies and lobbying of domestic governments.
“The corporate lobbying playbook is being deployed in full force to undermine an effective instrument and we urge greater scrutiny on the participation of industry in this process and a restriction on the access of major polluters to decision-makers,” it said.
On the plastic industry’s focus on downstream measures, such as waste management and recycling, and not capping plastic production, Alvarez added: “… As we are nearing the end of negotiations there is more at stake, it’s becoming more serious. It’s clear there is an even bigger temptation to really keep the focus on what seems easy and is not going to come in contradiction with any commercial interests.”
