What was supposed to be the last round of the United Nations global plastics treaty negotiations (INC 5.2) concluded last week in Geneva, Switzerland without a binding treaty agreement to address plastic pollution.
The final draft treaty text proposed by the INC Chair was a major disappointment and, if accepted by the parties, would have been a loss for people and planet. It focused on end-of-life waste-management and was filled with voluntary measures that parties would be able to pick and choose as they see fit. It would also let plastic producers and polluters off the hook for cleaning up the mess they are making and the harms they are causing to our health and the environment.
In particular, the draft treaty text failed to include key binding measures that frontline communities, Indigenous peoples and environmental justice and health advocates called for during the treaty negotiation process. Those measures include:
- restricting plastic production as the source of the plastic crises;
- phasing out chemicals of concern and problematic plastic products;
- protecting human health and upholding human rights;
- centering and upholding the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge; and,
- transparency and implementation provisions.
Ecojustice advocated for such measures alongside Aamjiwnaang First Nation — a frontline Indigenous community bearing the brunt of plastic pollution — during previous negotiations.
Thankfully, a majority of the high-ambition countries — including Canada — rejected the proposed text as it was too weak and missing key elements needed to achieve the goals of the treaty. In particular, Canada spoke out about the draft text’s failure to address chemicals of concern and the absence of any real mention of Indigenous Peoples and their Rights.
If there ends up being another round of negotiations, parties can’t follow the same process and expect a different result — something needs to change.
The exclusion of the voices of frontline communities and Indigenous Peoples, and the current consensus-based model — where every nation must agree before there can be a legally binding treaty — allows low-ambition countries backed by petrochemical industry lobbyists to block progress and create deadlock towards a final, ambitious agreement.
Assessing the global plastic treaty negotiations against our 12 guiding principles for a circular economy
Given the failure of the treaty negotiations to-date and the urgent need to tackle the plastic pollution crisis, we’re assessing how (some of the) 12 guiding principles for a circular economy could support a stronger, more ambitious plastics treaty in the future.
Guiding principle 1 – Focus on systems change
The plastics treaty process has failed to acknowledge and address the systemic issues that created the plastics crises in the first place — including the colonial, extractive and consumption-based underpinnings of our economy and society.
There has been no recognition of the historical or ongoing impacts of colonialism or the need to rectify those harms. This is seen most clearly in the failure to include Indigenous Peoples as Sovereign Rights-holders throughout the INC process.
Throughout the treaty process there has also been a failure to meaningfully address the extractive and consumption-focused foundations of the dominant economic system. This is demonstrated by the failure to ensure the treaty restricts plastic production (i.e. the extraction and processing of fossil fuels used to make plastics) and address unsustainable levels of consumption by wealthy and high-emitting countries.
While frontline communities, Indigenous Peoples, environmental justice advocates, and many country delegates — including Canada — called for strong provisions to address plastic production and unsustainable consumption during the negotiations, the consensus-based decision-making process meant that low ambition countries (backed by industry lobbyists) were able to block progress. Low ambition countries instead focused on advocating for false and unproven technological solutions, such as advanced or chemical recycling.
Guiding principle 2 – Living within ecological limits
The need to prioritize source reduction of material and energy use by producing and consuming less plastics and implementing reuse and refill infrastructure has been a key ask of frontline communities, Indigenous Peoples and environmental justice advocates throughout the INC process. Various proposals were put forward by high-ambition countries that would have placed restrictions on plastic production and ensure supports for necessary reuse and refill infrastructure to move us away from our reliance on plastics.
Unfortunately, low ambition countries once again blocked progress on including such provisions in the treaty. They instead pushed for resource recovery/recycling as the primary, and in some cases, only solution for addressing the plastic pollution crises rather than viewing it as a last resort — despite the evidence that only 9 per cent of plastic is recyclable. They also pushed false solutions and unproven technologies (e.g. chemical recycling) instead of addressing the source of the problem — plastic production.
The failure to tackle the plastics crises at the source and place limits on production and consumption is a clear failure to respect the limits of the natural world.
Guiding principle 3 – Reciprocity
Given the colonial foundations of our current systems, it is not surprising that the concept of reciprocity — which is foundational to many Indigenous cultures and worldviews that colonialism has sought to suppress — has not been reflected in the most recent versions of the draft treaty text. For example, there was no recognition of the need to limit what we extract from the earth, nor any mention of restoration or clean-up efforts. While there was a reference to the polluter pays principle, no obligations or mechanism to ensure polluters pay for restoration efforts was included in the final treaty draft.
In any event, because we have already extracted so much from the earth and caused such significant, pervasive and potentially irreversible harms due to our plastic addiction that it is questionable whether meaningful restoration is even possible. The chemical soup that we have unleashed and that is invading the land, air, water and our bodies (including breaching the blood-brain barrier) is something that we don’t have the technological capacities to reverse. Ecosystem health is a delicate balance that we have totally disrupted by glutting it with plastics. glutting it with plastics.
This treaty could have included language that could prevent further harm by placing restrictions on plastic production while also necessitating the funding of restoration efforts by plastic polluters.
Guiding principle 6 – Centering Indigenous Rights, Knowledge and Sovereignty
Indigenous Peoples and their Rights and Knowledge have not been centred in the treaty process. Repeated calls from Indigenous Peoples to be included as Sovereign-rights holders have been ignored. At most, Indigenous Peoples have been given a few minutes to speak during plenary sessions at the Chair’s discretion.
The International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Plastic Pollution has provided a strong voice throughout the INC process, circulating written statements and materials, holding ceremonies, press conferences and rallies. They’ve also demonstrated strong advocacy in continually pushing for language in the treaty that would embed the Rights and participation of Indigenous Peoples in the treaty.
Guiding principle 7 – Social justice and equity
Issues of justice and equity were not centred into the treaty negotiation process, nor were they reflected in draft treaty text. If they were, we would see provisions focused on addressing the disproportionate impacts of plastics on human health, human rights, and Indigenous Rights in racialized and marginalized communities. We would have also seen producers being obligated to remedy the harms caused to-date and preventing further harms by stopping plastic pollution at the source.
Frontline communities, Indigenous Peoples and environmental justice and health advocates tireless efforts to have such provisions included in the treaty did not go unnoticed. They provided clear and powerful evidence of the impacts of plastics on human health, human rights and Indigenous Rights. Their advocacy was a bright spot in the negotiation process and demonstrated that they hold the real solutions to the plastic crises.
Guiding principle 8 – Just transition
The most recent drafts of the treaty do include a provision related to ensuring a just transition. However, the language proposed is weak and fails to put any mandatory obligations on parties that would ensure a just transition to a zero-waste and plastic free future that supports reuse and refill economies.
Guiding principle 11 – Inclusive and participatory
The INC process failed to include a plurality of diverse perspectives, including those most impacted by plastic pollution. Indigenous Peoples, frontline communities, waste pickers and environmental justice advocates were excluded from participating meaningfully in the formal negotiations. As registered observers, these groups were allowed to sit in and “observe” some of the negotiations but were only allowed to speak for two minutes, and in very rare instances — during plenary sessions at the discretion of the Chair. There were also a lot of “informal sessions” held over the last several rounds of negotiations that were only open to country delegates, not observers.
As a result, we did not see a diversity of perspectives reflected in the process. The voices of those most impacted by plastic pollution were missing from the negotiations, as were the voices of future generations and non-humans. If they were given a voice at the table, we would no doubt be in a much different place with a treaty that is fit for purpose.
Where do we go from here?
We need a path forward that allows the many high-ambition countries to finalize an ambitious treaty that aligns with the recommendations articulated by frontline communities, Indigenous Peoples, and environmental justice and health advocates.
In our view, applying the 12 guiding principles for a circular economy to future negotiations — along with changing the procedure to allow decision-making by majority vote rather than consensus — would help create a better process and outcome that would meaningfully protect people and planet from plastic pollution.
