By Lynn Konwaia’tanón:we’s Jacobs
December 13th, 2024
On December 2nd at about 3:00 am, the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations concluded in Busan, South Korea, without a treaty. The negotiations started off with some cautious optimism, but that quickly shifted to hesitancy and concern, as country delegations, civil society and Indigenous Peoples took stock of the ongoing resistance of several petrostates to negotiate in good faith. The contact groups operate under Chatham House Rule, which means that we cannot disclose specific details about who said what. However, the livestreamed plenaries provided ample opportunity to publicly reveal the low ambition culprits who are holding the future generations hostage in these treaty negotiations. The firm intent of Saudi Arabia, the Russian Federation, Kuwait, India and others, to ignore all upstream impacts of the plastic pollution crisis has been clear since the beginning. From their perspective, phasing down plastic production and regulating the more than 16,000 chemicals added to plastics, are “out of scope” for the treaty, yet the mandate provided by UNEA 5/14 is to “produce an international legally binding instrument [...] that addresses the full lifecycle of plastic.”[1]
Most of us are left wondering how it could be that the scope of what is being negotiated is still not defined, even by the 5th, and what was meant to be the final Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) meeting. Disagreement on the rules of procedure are partly to blame as negotiations are stuck in a consensus decision-making format that allows a few countries to block progress. There’s a great chasm between the text proposed for production reduction and chemicals of concern, and the entrenched insistence by some petrostates of “no provisions” for these articles. As country delegations continued to dance along the edge of this great chasm, in rooms and closed meetings that excluded observers, Indigenous Peoples and civil society were busy calling out the inequities in the process and pushing for a voice to effectively address this environmental and humanitarian crisis.
The week started with a Global Plastic March, which saw about 1,500 people taking to the streets of Busan[2] to let negotiators know that the world is watching. At the start of INC-5, Indigenous Peoples, coming together from many different parts of the world, launched our newly formalized body for the ongoing work on the plastics treaty – the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Plastic (IIPFP). Although we were small in number (10x less than fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists), we made our presence known through our powerful interventions during plenaries, communication of our strong key messages, packed press event, and skillful coalition building.
"They are shifting responsibility of disposal into Indigenous areas, to the people who have contributed least to the problem."
Indigenous Peoples and other frontline and fenceline communities are disproportionately impacted by the plastic pollution crisis at all stages, from extraction on Indigenous lands of the fossil fuels used in plastic production, proximity to petrochemical refineries and plastic production and recycling facilities, to the widespread dispersal of microplastics and associated chemicals in our water, food, and air. "We do not know how to handle plastics because we do not come from a plastic culture,” said Indu Tharu of the National Indigenous Women's Federation, Nepal, at our IIPFP press briefing. “Our natural materials would go back to the earth without impacts. They are shifting responsibility of disposal into Indigenous areas, to the people who have contributed least to the problem." Jo Banner, part of the sister founding duo of The Descendants Project in Louisiana, highlighted the impacts of the plastics industry to frontline black communities: "People are not disposable, but they are treating them like they're disposable. We are dying for foolishness, for straws. This is not economic development. Communities have the right to say no."
At the first plenary, observer groups were denied the floor to give opening statements, and when it became clear that the second plenary would have the same ending, the IIPFP took the risk of expulsion from the process by standing in unison and demanding that the Chair let our Elder speak. Our collective noise inside and outside the negotiation rooms reverberated through the halls of the INC and resonated with our coalition and media allies. The message from this visibility served to remind state delegations that the world is watching, and that history will judge them for how they handle the impasse in these treaty negotiations.
"Every day of delay is a day against humanity."
On November 28th, the final day of the contact group meetings, with only two minutes left of a hard-stop at 9:00 PM, a statement on production reduction, supported by about 100 nations, was dropped. This strategic move was both shocking and awe-inspiring for those of us who had been sitting through many hours of discussions with no convergence in sight. Certain low ambition countries did not see this coming either, and given the close of the meeting, they had no space to react or find grounds on which to raise an objection. Within hours, the buzz had spread that some courageous countries, led by Panama, Mexico and Rwanda, will be holding the line on production reduction in the Global Plastics Treaty. At their press briefing on the last day, Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, the superstar champion from the Panamanian delegation, said: “This is the time to step up or get out!”
In his closing speech during the final plenary, Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez warned: “Every day of delay is a day against humanity. By the time we reconvene, at least 230 billion tons of plastics will enter our oceans, another million marine animals will die and will further pollute the ocean food chain. Microplastics will continue to infiltrate our water, food, and bodies. Every child born in the next 6 months will carry this poison in their blood stream. Human bodies will further devolve into toxic waste dumps.” He concluded his passionate speech with a message to countries, activists and Indigenous Peoples standing up for ambition: “We did not accept a weak treaty here, and we never will… To the more than 100 nations standing for ambition I say, “let us be relentless!” We might have been delayed, but we will not be stopped. To the activists and civil society who have carried this fight, you are the heartbeat of this movement. Your courage and pursuit of justice keeps this fight alive. Rest, recharge and return stronger.”
And so, we heed the advice of our new ally and brother Juan Carlos, and the many other country delegations who are finally stepping up in the Global Plastics Treaty process. Some moments of well-deserved rest are needed for these state delegations, our IIPFP relatives, and the many other activists and scientists working to ensure that the Global Plastics Treaty meaningfully addresses the full lifecycle of plastic. The current proposed treaty text is extremely weak in many areas, including a complete exclusion of Indigenous Rights, so there is still a steep hill to climb.
We expect that INC-5.2 will involve a dramatic showdown of high versus low ambition. The chasm between the two sides will need to close, or one side will need to step away from the ledge and force a decision. Canada, who is part of the high ambition coalition, has been showing up in these negotiations like a cautious wallflower at best. They will need to step up their game and show some strength, or risk being grouped with the other petrostates in this process. Will Canada defend Indigenous Rights in the treaty, even behind closed doors when the pressure is on, or were their past efforts on this just for public perception? How will the upcoming change in administration in the US affect the next session of negotiations? Will the INC-5.2 process be more inclusive of Rights Holders and civil society? Will the impasse in the treaty negotiations be broken through the implementation of a voting mechanism in the rules of procedure, or will some countries walk out?
How ever the next part of the story plays out, the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Plastics will be ready to defend the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and of the future generations who are depending on us to act decisively to solve the plastic pollution crisis. We will recharge and do it all again, because there is no other option.
Notes
[1] UNEP_EA.5_RES.14-EN.pdf
[2] At least 1,500 March in Busan Demanding Cuts in Plastic Production as Global Treaty Talks Reach Final Stage | Break Free From Plastic
Lynn is Kanien’kehá:ka from the community of Kahnawà:ke and an active member of the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Plastics (IIPFP). She is currently working on a PhD at McGill University focused on plastics, colonialism, and implications to Indigenous Peoples.
Comments