By Jennifer McDermott, The Associated Press
Experts are gathered in Bangkok this week, working on what may become the first international treaty aimed at combating the growing issue of plastic pollution.
With final negotiations scheduled to occur in South Korea this November, all eyes are on the progress being made.
Despite the urgency of the situation, many stakeholders—including environmentalists, tribal leaders, and residents severely affected by plastic production—are absent from the discussions.
Interestingly, representatives from the plastic industry are claiming they too cannot gain access to the meetings.
Over 400 organizations voiced their concerns to the United Nations Environment Programme, the host of the event, arguing the lack of transparency violates standard practices for international treaties.
They emphasized the need for public involvement, raising fears about the potential negative impact of this restrictive approach.
During previous meetings of the UN Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee on Plastic Pollution, held over the last two years, countries spent considerable time on procedural debates, including voting methods.
Now, this gathering of subject matter experts is the first to focus on the substance of what the treaty may entail.
Negotiation committee Executive Secretary Jyoti Mathur-Philippe stated she lacks the authority to allow additional attendees, as countries have not yet consented to including observers.
According to Mathur-Philippe, United Nations documents typically specify participation for member states and select technical experts only.
She noted this informal meeting serves as more of a working session rather than official treaty negotiations, though she acknowledged the significance of observer contributions.
For participation, individuals must be part of a national delegation or one of about two dozen invited technical experts.
The two expert groups present at the meeting are concentrating on the chemicals commonly found within plastic products and exploring potential financing for the treaty.
Following this meeting, the findings will then be presented to participating countries at the final session slated for South Korea.
Markedly, back in 2022, the majority of the world's countries agreed to develop the first legally-binding treaty to address plastic pollution on all fronts, including its impacts on oceans.
The overarching goal was to finalize negotiations by the end of 2024.
Traditionally, environmental activists, industry representatives, and community stakeholders have actively collected insights from observations across multiple continents.
They often bring forth their views and concerns during these treaty discussions.
The International Council of Chemical Associations had high hopes for their scientists and engineers to provide input at the Bangkok meetings.
Yet, Chris Jahn, the ICCA secretariat, expressed disappointment over their exclusion but maintains their commitment to support the negotiation process.
A number of the groups objecting to the meeting restrictions advocate for a strong treaty to cap plastic production and eliminate hazardous substances used in plastic manufacturing.
Vito Buonsante, policy advisor at the International Pollutants Elimination Network, warned of the dangers presented when fewer parties engaged could lead to the drafting of weaker agreements.
He commented, “When you get close to the end, the decision to limit participation could be seen as avoiding accountability from civil society.”
Historically, other treaty discussions have allowed observers to join working groups.
For example, participants were welcomed at previous talks concerning the Minamata Convention, which addressed mercury, and the Stockholm Convention on chemicals harmful to human health.
Some delegations, including those from China and Iran, have managed to include industry representatives within their teams.
On the other hand, environmentalists and scientists sought inclusion within national delegations, achieving mixed success.
Some nations, such as Uruguay and the Philippines, have allowed nonprofit representatives to accompany their delegations, showcasing community involvement.
Notably, the Indigenous Peoples Caucus is sending specialists to align with each expert group, primarily drawn from communities facing pollution during plastic manufacturing.
Frankie Orona, executive director of the Society of Native Nations based in Texas, emphasized the importance of represented voices from those affected.
With Texas as one of the leading states for petrochemical production, he voiced his concerns about inadequate participation stifling meaningful solutions.
Orona stated, “It’s taking away our ability to fully participate and come up with meaningful solutions.”
With all these factors at play, the urgency for inclusive dialogue surrounding plastic pollution continues to be pivotal as the negotiations advance.
Only time will tell whether these discussions will yield impactful solutions or leave many voices on the sidelines.
