Some countries reject the idea that the eventual treaty should tackle oil extraction and plastics production at the start of the life cycle. Ambitious countries say the scope is clear in the resolution and that reopening discussion risks a treaty focused on waste management instead of the root cause, rising production.
A UK government spokesperson insisted that “no proposals were produced” at this meeting and it does not replace any formal negotiations.
Yet despite these reassurances, NGOs are concerned these informal meetings could create a shadowy parallel process. “As we saw from the recent Japan meeting, the voices of key regional blocs were notably absent, undermining a core tenet of multilateralism: equal representation,” says GAIA’s Rocha.
Exclusion concerns were only heightened by the most recent informal meeting, in Nairobi in July. The event drew together head delegates from each negotiating country, and observers were not invited to attend.
Some fear this absence is taking a toll on the process that could signal lowering ambition to come.
Jacob Kean-Hammerson, global plastics policy lead at Greenpeace USA, said a document outlining priorities for discussion, circulated by the chair before the Nairobi gathering, “just completely crossed out the notion of having any conversation on chemicals or production,” despite these being core issues with majority support, he says. “There is no unanimous agreement to not include those things, or even simply have a discussion on their merits.”
When this concern was put to Cordano in a press conference in June, he insisted that “no topics are excluded”.
Sylla argues that limiting participation makes it easier for governments to settle on a weak agreement down the line. “If you want to agree to a low-ambition [treaty], you need to kill the transparency [and] the inclusiveness,” he says.
Delegates from several African countries have also boycotted recent informal head-of-delegation meetings due to a lack of French-language interpretation, Sylla adds. In the past, translation has been provided at plenary sessions but not routinely in other sessions, say attendees.
The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) rejected a proposal to provide interpretation at upcoming informal meetings on budgetary grounds. “This approach is consistent with established UN practices for intergovernmental negotiations,” it stated. Sylla says this could exclude around 20 French-speaking countries from meaningful participation in these meetings. Any interpretation has to be provided centrally by the UN so they cannot hire their own interpreters, he adds.
Many Global South countries rely on aid from wealthier countries to participate at the talks but this resource is also under threat. Norway, for example, has recently scaled back its aid for work on sustainable oceans and marine litter.
Karoline Andaur, WWF-Norway secretary general, said: “The programme is essential for ensuring civil society meaningful participation in key national and global decision-making processes. Norway’s support allows waste pickers, affected communities, scientists, and the Global South actors to participate in plastic pollution treaty negotiations.”
“Cutting this funding would weaken participation and transparency, thereby creating a democratic deficit in the talks.”
Kenya will be severely affected by Norway’s cut, according to WWF. WWF Kenya’s CEO, Jackson Kiplagat, says the cut “sends the wrong signal when we need greater commitment, not less”.
Norway has long been a key financier of participation by delegates from African and other developing countries in UN-led environmental negotiations, including the plastics treaty talks, says Ayub Macharia, who is on Kenya’s delegation at the talks.
Ayub feels funding cuts could limit the number of delegates some countries are able to send to future negotiations.
“This is significant since INC discussions often take place simultaneously in separate negotiating tracks, requiring multiple representatives to effectively monitor and engage in the process.” Lower financial support may limit resource-constrained countries from shaping the treaty’s outcome, he explains.
Token inclusion for civil society?
NGOs, Indigenous peoples groups and other civil society organisations have previously met with delegates at formal negotiations to provide research, guidance and testimony to dozens of member states that actively seek their advice. But UN-organised informals are not usually open to observers.
This means that for the long months ahead, civil society may only be involved in the process via informal webinars with the chair.
“It’s still very, very unclear how and if civil society can participate,”saysFrankie Orona, a longtime observer of the process and executive director of Society of Native Nations, an environmental and Indigenous cultures nonprofit.
Concerns have been stoked by suggestions from the chair during a webinar with observers that the 700-plusorganisations which make up the civil society bloc should “self-organise” and elect specific “focal” contacts. These would represent multiple groups at once, as a possible way to be allowed to engage in the informal meetings.
Despite the potential benefits of gaining access to the informal meetings, Orona is wary about the long-term effect of reducing organisations’ ability to engage directly with the secretariat and reducing diverse voices to a single spokesperson. “We have to be very cautious about what we, as civil society, agree on. Because we could be setting a precedent of how [formal] negotiations are handled moving forward, and we can’t allow for that low of an ambition.”
Observer inclusion is also critical to a just and balanced process, argues Alexandra Harrington, an international jurist and chair of the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Plastic Pollution Task Force. “Many of us involved in the process actually provide vital legal and scientific support for developing countries.”
“The big countries have huge delegations and well-trained international legal teams, which the smaller countries don’t have access to,” she says. “If you take that away or if you limit the access, then you’re limiting the ability of countries to actually have legal advice.”
Academics have also shared their concerns. The shift to observer-free informal sessions might have to do with “growing political sensitivity as countries grapple with issues that are likely to shape the final agreement”, says Steve Fletcher, director of the Revolution Plastics Institute at the University of Portsmouth.
“Concern arises when substantial phases of negotiations, or negotiations on key issues, take place without public scrutiny,” he says. If closed-door discussions become the norm, there is a risk that the final agreement reflects political compromise more than the needs of those most affected by plastic pollution, Fletcher adds.
In his response to Dialogue Earth, the chair of the INC process, Julio Cordano, says his suggestion to observers to self-organise “was not intended to reduce direct engagement”. In fact, it may help expedite “access and interaction”, he says.
“My objective is to strengthen, not narrow, observer engagement while respecting the member-led nature of the negotiations,” he adds.
Shellan Saling, interim chair of the Youth Plastic Action Network, says observers, including youth participants, do not have the access to the negotiations that they need. But Saling says it is the wider process and not the chair that is the problem. “I have seen significant improvement in transparency and inclusivity compared to the previous chairs,” she says.
Saling points to Cordano’s regular meetings with observers and publication of letters and meeting notes.
UNEP, whose secretariat supports the plastics treaty negotiations, says it is “fully committed to a transparent and inclusive INC process”.
A spokesperson added: “The secretariat supports transparency by sharing and publishing relevant information on the INC website, supporting observer webinars and related engagement opportunities, and clarifying and applying applicable UN secretariat rules and arrangements as mandated, including on interpretation.”
As countries work to revive the treaty process, the challenge will be in balancing efficiency with inclusivity.
Harrington warns that if all countries are not properly involved, “getting legal and scientific advice that they need from civil society organisations when they can’t afford it… you build a treaty that is inequitable and, when you put it in place, it doesn’t have the intended effect.”
This article was originally published on Dialogue Earth under a Creative Commons licence.
