Waste pickers and allies stand together at INC-5. Photo credit: Taylor Cass Talbott
We leave the UNEP Plastics negotiations in Busan, South Korea, without a meaningful treaty to end the plastics pollution crisis. While it is clear that a strong treaty is needed to protect marginalized communities and ecosystems worldwide, such a goal feels distant at present. Yet, our movements have shown that we will not be sidelined in the struggle for a binding, effective agreement that meets the needs of the most vulnerable.
The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) process failed to deliver on the promise of a Just Transition, before we even arrived in Busan. Meaningful inclusion of Just Transition guidelines for such a treaty requires centering the voices, knowledge, and needs of communities and workers most impacted by plastics production and pollution, in all aspects of the treaty design, decision-making, and implementation. Also, a Just Transition cannot be achieved when negotiations happen behind closed doors, as we witnessed throughout INC-5.
Finally, witnessing wealthy UN member states’ reluctance to finance a Just Transition, it needs to be noted that a Global Plastics Treaty is bound to fail without clear and direct funding commitments that serve to protect and serve Indigenous peoples, environmental justice communities, waste pickers, and other workers on the frontlines and fencelines of this global ecological crisis.
Doors closed to observers at INC5 negotiations. Photo credit: Fernando Tormos-Aponte
Moving forward, our movements are more aligned.
All that being said, we leave Busan with a sense of optimism, having forged a greater degree of alignment amongst our allied grassroots movements than before. We now have waste picker unions, Indigenous Peoples groups, trade unions, youth, and environmental justice groups standing up for each other’s rights and demands. This is a very strong statement to send to UN member states because when our movements express such alignment, our force exceeds that of polluting corporations and the lobbyists who protect their interests. Just transition, at its core, is a set of principles that express mutual aid, solidarity, and interconnectedness that is inclusive of the unique vulnerabilities of all affected groups around the world.
Moving forward, we must recommit to joint struggles with principled practice. We know that we will continue to be tested, facing offers to safeguard our rights at the expense of those of others. To this, we say “none of us will be free unless all of us are free.” Our movements must practice the solidarity, mutuality, and inclusivity we want to see in the INC processes. For example, civil society groups and foundations from the Global North that have greater access to resources must consider more equitable fund-sharing strategies.
Our movements united against false corporate schemes.
We also do not leave Busan defeated, as we have built a growing opposition to false corporate schemes being forced on the plastics treaty. Waste pickers groups, trade union confederations, environmental justice groups, and Indigenous Peoples spoke loudly and clearly against the inclusion of plastic credits and market-based schemes in the treaty. International Alliance of Waste Pickers spokesperson Indumathi said: “We waste pickers prefer to avoid market-based mechanisms for addressing plastic pollution, as often such mechanisms privilege other stakeholders over waste pickers.”
The day after we joined forces against such false solutions, they were no longer explicitly mentioned in the treaty text. While the door was left open for false solutions (i.e., the text still mentions blended and innovative financing), it is clear that our opposition to plastic credits and other offsetting schemes makes their inclusion too controversial. Moving forward, we must continue to hold the line against such false solutions. While some have shifted to trying to make these failed systems more palatable, we are calling on our movements to keep holding the line. It is clear that industries profiting from the plastic pollution crisis are seeking to deceive civil society groups into accepting and supporting offsetting mechanisms. This is why we must mobilize resources, research, and raise awareness to close the door on false solutions. Our pushback against false solutions will make our opposition impossible to ignore.
States don’t hold the line. We do.
We must also remember that state delegates do not hold the line. Our movements do. We cannot be deceived by states’ showings of token support while they consent to a process that excludes our movements. UN member state delegates should be accountable to our movements and communities, not to the polluters that curtail strong measures to address the crisis. State delegates and UN officials must stop using waste pickers, youth, and Indigenous Peoples as props while closing the door to them during negotiations. Why consent to a process that shuts out those most affected by the plastic pollution crisis? It is clear that a drastic rethinking and redesigning of these negotiations is urgently needed.
Where do we go from here?
Not a single draft of the treaty text came close to meeting movement demands. Our job is not to accept compromises on behalf of member states. We need a People’s Agreement on Plastics that articulates real solutions to the plastics pollution crisis, one that is not bound by the limitations of countries beholden to oil, gas, petrochemical, waste, and plastic production industries, profiting from the crisis. Let’s articulate the agreement we’d like to see without the constraints of exclusive rules, processes, and the undue influence of polluters. That will be the agreement we bring to the next stage of this UN process – anything short of that is not good enough for any of us.
Many are disillusioned with this INC process and question whether they will ever deliver the justice we seek. They have legitimate claims and concerns. Those involved in elevating movement demands at the INC process must continue coordinating our work with those holding the line locally, at home – fighting to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and pushing for truly circular, place-based alternatives to the plastics paradigm. We face a long road ahead. An agreement without clear commitments and binding measures to end plastics pollution will fall short of addressing the crisis. We must build stronger movements locally, regionally, and globally to apply pressure from below against the greatest contributors to this crisis. Polluters must be made to pay, and the leadership of frontline workers and communities must prevail for a treaty to be credible.