Learn About The Plastics Treaty ➝
Protect our planet! Last chance to join the call for a strong Plastics Treaty. SIGN THE PETITION NOW.
Media Invite: A Workshop for ASEAN Parliamentarians on The Impact of Plastic Pollution on Human Rights
Dates: 04 July 2025 | 8:30 - 17:30 MYT
05 July 2025 | 8:30 - 13:30 MYT
Venue: Corus Hotel KLCC, Persiaran Hampshire, Jalan Ampang, 50450 Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (Map Link)
Duration: 1.5 days
We cordially invite media representatives to cover a groundbreaking regional workshop bringing together parliamentarians and civil society organizations to address the urgent challenge of transboundary plastic pollution and its impact on human rights across ASEAN.
This workshop will convene parliamentarians from Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines alongside regional civil society organizations to tackle one of Southeast Asia's most pressing environmental and human rights challenges.
The workshop aims to:
Over two days, discussions will flow around the following sessions:
The workshop aims to produce a joint statement by Southeast Asian policymakers, Break Free From Plastic Asia Pacific members, and ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) emphasizing plastic pollution's impact on human rights in communities in Southeast Asia and its consideration in ASEAN policymaking. This statement will be submitted by hand to the Malaysian representative to the ASEAN Senior Officials on Environment (ASOEN) and to each member state representative for agenda inclusion at the ASOEN 36th meeting (July 28 - August 1).
This event is particularly relevant for journalists covering:
This workshop represents a critical step toward regional cooperation on plastic pollution, combining legislative action with human rights advocacy to address one of ASEAN's most significant environmental and socio-economic challenges.
---------
Break Free from Plastic (BFFP) & ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR)
With support from BFFP members from the Asia Pacific region:
Basel Action Network (BAN), Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center), Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM), Consumers’ Association of Penang (CAP), Pacific Environment and Resources Center Vietnam (PE-VN), Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF), Ecological Observation and Wetland Conservations (ECOTON), BAN Toxics, and EcoWaste Coalition
---------
For media inquiries:
Pats Oliva: Media and Communications Manager| ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) | pats@aseanmp.org
Devayani Khare: Regional Communications Manager | Break Free From Plastic - Asia Pacific (BFFP-AP) | devayani@breakfreefromplastic.org
---------
BUSAN, Republic of Korea, November 29, 2024 — A broad coalition of observer organizations held a press conference outside of the fifth Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to advance a plastics treaty. The organizations demanded that negotiators come together to show courage and not compromise in the final days of the negotiations.
The organizations delivered the following statement:
There are only 36 hours left of scheduled negotiations to secure a global treaty that can end plastic pollution. But right now, we see the usual low-ambition countries derailing the negotiations while the countries who have pledged ambition, such as members of the High Ambition Coalition (HAC) and who sit comfortably in the majority, are sleepwalking into a treaty that will not be worth the paper it will be written on. Negotiators are sticking with business as usual at such a crucial stage, abandoning their commitments, ignoring their principles, neglecting the science and economics in front of them, and failing those most impacted. All in the pursuit of consensus and finalizing any kind of treaty by the end of this week, regardless of how catastrophically futile it will be in addressing the worsening plastic crisis.
Contrary to their excuses, ambitious countries have the power and the pathways to forge a treaty to end the global plastic crisis. What we are severely lacking right now, however, is the determination of our leaders to do what is right and to fight for the treaty they promised the world two years ago.
A weak treaty based on voluntary measures will break under the weight of the plastic crisis and will lock us into an endless cycle of unnecessary harm. The clear demand from impacted communities and the overwhelming majority of citizens, scientists, and businesses for binding global rules across the entire lifecycle is irrefutable. The vast majority of governments know what now needs to be done. They know what measures we need and they know how they can be implemented. Negotiators have several procedural options available, including voting or making a treaty among the willing. In these final throes of negotiations, we need governments to show courage. They must not compromise under pressure exerted by a small group of low-ambition states and hinge the life of our planet on unachievable consensus. We demand a strong treaty that protects our health and the health of future generations.
Notes to the editor:
Photos from the INC-5 Day 5 Press conference are available here. Credit to Greenpeace.
Read about the March to End the Plastic Era: https://bit.ly/INC4march
Translations in French and Spanish will be available here.
Civil society groups from around the world came together in a mass mobilization at the fourth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4) for a Global Plastics Treaty in Ottawa, Canada, as well as in different satellite actions in multiple locations globally, to center the goals and values of communities most impacted by the plastic lifecycle. The march took place on 21 April 2024 (Sunday) at Parliament Hill and the Shaw Center to remind governments who exactly they are negotiating for at the INC.
These are the key demands from the civil society groups for delegates at INC-4:
March 1st, 2024, Nairobi - Today concluded the sixth UN Environment Assembly (UNEA 6), bringing representatives from 193 countries to Nairobi, Kenya, to consider proposals for “Effective, inclusive and sustainable multilateral actions to tackle climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.” After a week of discussions, #BreakFreeFromPlastic members on the ground continued calling for governments to push for an ambitious Global Plastics Treaty in preparation for the fourth round of negotiations that will take place in Ottawa, Canada, in late April.
Amid concern over attempts to limit the mandate of the plastics treaty during the week, Hellen Kahaso Dena, Project Lead of the Pan-Africa Plastics Project at Greenpeace Africa, said, "A few countries are attempting to water down the already agreed language on ending plastic pollution by 2040, reducing ambition on all fronts, and denying the link between chemicals and the climate crisis. We strongly urge member states not to undermine the mandate of the Global Plastics Treaty, and show courage and ambition as we continue the negotiations in Ottawa next month." –Read Greenpeace's full statement here.
David Azoulay, Director of the Center for International Environmental Law’s Environmental Health program, responded, “we welcome the renewed commitment to engage constructively in the ongoing negotiation of an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution. Unsurprisingly, the same Member States who have worked to derail and obstruct the plastics treaty negotiations resort to a backdoor effort to attempt to renegotiate the INC’s mandate. While this declaration has no legal bearing on the mandate for the INC’s work, reaffirming the mandate at UNEA-6 is a valuable political statement in the face of continued bad-faith engagement by the United States and petrostates who are trying every means to limit the ambition of the future treaty. Governments need to respect their previous commitments and listen to the independent scientists and communities around the world who are demanding ambitious action. They must right the ship ahead of INC-4 to ensure the negotiations in Ottawa do not end in failure.” –CIEL's statement is also available here.
Ana Rocha, Director of Global Plastics Program for GAIA, added, "UNEA6 was a clear representation of the world’s political complexity and imbalance. When it comes to the Plastics Crisis, a handful of countries constantly tried to isolate and reduce the significance of resolution 5/14 that originated the Plastic Treaty negotiations. Thankfully, the commitment to urgently eliminate plastic pollution across the full lifecycle of plastics was once again reinforced in the Ministerial Declaration. We leave Nairobi with hope that the upcoming fourth round of negotiations in Canada will move us towards an ambitious Plastics Treaty."
Frankie Orona, Executive Director for Society of Native Nations also commented on the UNEA 6 meeting, "we found during UNEA 6 that many oil states tried to dilute, prolong and stop any progress related to the Global Plastic Treaty INC. We have found once again, an inequitable participation when it comes to including the voices of Indigenous Peoples, Frontline communities and workers, who are disproportionally impacted by the fossil fuel, petrochemical, agriculture and chemical industry. The issues in our impacted communities should not be considered just a human health and environmental issue but more of a human rights issue."
Rahyang Nusantara, Deputy Director of Dietplastik Indonesia, said, UNEA-6 was an opportunity to create a better strategy prior to the next INC-4 towards the Plastics Treaty. During side events and side meetings I was involved in, there was a lot of conversations on plastic pollution and especially around reuse as a solution, however I noticed a lot of different interpretations of the word. Reuse is not recycling and it is not only a packaging but also a system. Success of plastic reduction measures will depend on the scaling up of accessible sustainable alternatives. Reuse systems and refills are often the most sustainable option as compared to single-use substitutions and reuse systems should be material-agnostic. I look forward to more discussions and intersessional work to ensure that Reuse is central to achieving “Resolution 5/14 End plastic pollution: towards an international legally binding instrument”
On a separate note, BFFP member IPEN celebrated UNEA's call for action to end the use of the world’s most toxic pesticides by 2035, which continues to drive the connection across environmental issues and the petrochemical impacts on human health, including pesticides and plastics.
Additional BFFP's statements will be added as they become available.
###
About Break Free From Plastic – #BreakFreeFromPlastic is a global movement envisioning a future free from plastic pollution. Since its launch in 2016, more than 2,000 organizations and 11,000 individual supporters from across the world have joined the movement to demand massive reductions in single-use plastics and push for lasting solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. BFFP member organizations and individuals share the shared values of environmental protection and social justice and work together through a holistic approach to bring about systemic change. This means tackling plastic pollution across the whole plastics value chain—from extraction to disposal—focusing on prevention rather than cure and providing effective solutions.www.breakfreefromplastic.org
This blog encapsulates a conversation with Ms. Xuan Quach, the Country Director of Pacific Environment Vietnam, the organisation that commissioned the thought-provoking documentary, "The Direction for Imported Plastic Waste (in Vietnamese, with English subtitles)."
It delves into the intricate layers of Vietnam's burgeoning plastic production and its consequential reliance on imported plastic waste. Through this exchange, we aim to shed light on the complexities of the plastic waste trade and ignite meaningful discourse on the imperative for change, not just in Vietnam but in other waste-recipient countries in Southeast Asia as well.
Q1. What inspired the creation of "The Direction for Imported Plastic Waste?”
A: Currently, in Vietnam, the issue of imported plastic waste is not receiving much attention. We are one of the first organizations to pay attention to this issue. However, effective communication requires materials, which are currently very scarce (or can be said to be nonexistent). Conversely, there is a significant amount of plastic waste being imported into Vietnam. For example, in 2022, over 2 million tons of plastic waste were imported, a staggering figure. Vietnam ranks second globally, only behind Malaysia.
However, campaigns regarding the import of plastic waste in other countries are very active, such as requiring the return of waste to the exporting country.
We hope to have visual materials to integrate with communication campaigns to share the current situation of imported waste in Vietnam. If the situation of importing plastic waste into Vietnam continues, domestic plastic waste will be disposed of. Therefore, we also aim to use communication about this issue to promote the incorporation of domestic plastic waste into the waste cycle, prioritizing domestic plastic waste over imported waste.
Additionally, there is another very important aspect that we want to address, which is that plastic recycling also causes serious environmental pollution, releasing many toxic substances as well as greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.
Q2. Is there a shortage of plastic scrap in Vietnam? Why does it need imported plastic waste?
A: Yes, there is a shortage of plastic scrap in Vietnam. The country's demand for plastic materials, both for manufacturing and recycling purposes, exceeds the available domestic supply. This shortage arises due to various factors, including limited domestic plastic waste collection and sorting infrastructure, insufficient recycling capacity, and the growing demand for plastic products in various industries.
Imported plastic waste is needed to supplement the domestic supply and meet the demand for raw materials in Vietnam's plastic manufacturing and recycling industries. Despite efforts to increase domestic recycling rates and reduce reliance on imported plastic waste, the gap between supply and demand persists, necessitating the importation of plastic scrap. However, it's essential to note that the importation of plastic waste also poses environmental and social challenges, prompting calls for sustainable waste management practices and developing a circular economy in Vietnam.
Furthermore, according to the new production trends in the market, the demand from brands for products made from recycled plastic is also very high. However, the amount of domestic plastic waste does not meet the quantity and quality requirements. Therefore, Vietnam still has a significant demand for high-quality imported plastic waste from developed countries.
Q3. What are the main messages or insights that VZWA hopes to convey to the audience through the documentary, and how do they envision it contributing to public awareness and discussions surrounding plastic waste trade?
A: Through this film, we also aim to convey the message that ending the importation of plastic waste as soon as possible is crucial. We advocate for enhancing domestic plastic waste sorting and recycling efforts while moving towards sustainable plastic production and consumption practices. This includes design changes towards reusable and recyclable plastic products, thereby promoting a higher level of circularity. As individuals, we should reject unnecessary single-use plastic items, opt for reusable products, actively engage in waste sorting, refrain from littering, and avoid burning plastic waste.
Together, let's live responsibly towards the environment so that we can truly inhabit a clean environment where we can breathe unpolluted air, drink clean water from uncontaminated sources, consume clean food, reduce the occurrence of environmentally-induced diseases, mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and alleviate extreme weather events caused by climate change.
Q4. Do you think recycling and landfills can adequately address plastic waste trade?
A: Recycling and landfilling alone are insufficient to address the plastic waste trade. While recycling helps reduce the amount of plastic waste that ends up in landfills or the environment, it has its limitations. Not all types of plastic are easily recyclable, and the process itself can be energy-intensive and may produce by-products that are harmful to the environment.
Landfilling is also not a sustainable solution as it leads to environmental pollution, soil and water contamination, and greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to climate change.
To effectively address plastic waste trade, a multi-faceted approach is needed, including:
By implementing a comprehensive approach that addresses the root causes of plastic waste generation and trade, we can work towards a more sustainable and circular economy that minimises the negative impacts of plastic pollution on the environment and human health.
* Context for Q4: This week, there has also been a fresh research publication. The study, led by Kaustubh Thapa from Utrecht University, reveals that a significant amount of European plastic waste exported to Vietnam, despite strict EU recycling regulations, is unrecyclable and ends up being dumped in the environment. The study, focused on Minh Khai Craft Village in Vietnam, highlights the detrimental impact on local communities, with toxic wastewater being dumped daily. The research underscores the contrast between European recycling efforts and the harsh realities in Global South recycling hubs, emphasizing the need for a more ethical and sustainable approach to waste trade. Thapa suggests that current EU initiatives, including the European Green New Deal and Circular Economy Actions Plan, must address these findings for a meaningful impact on the global plastic waste issue.
The research states that "Perhaps it may be better to incinerate or landfill waste in Europe than to increase recycling percentages by exporting waste and causing socio-ecological harm elsewhere. Alternatively, the EU could realise its circularity ambitions by creating ethical and trustworthy recycling facilities either abroad or within the EU."
Q5. How can a just transition be defined and implemented for labour organizations in Vietnam involved in the plastic waste trade?
A: At present, VZWA and PEVN are also concerned about ensuring a fair transition for informal labour forces, namely the scavenging workforce - individuals with low income, no social benefits, no hazardous insurance, and unrecognized within the current waste management process.
What we hope for when EPR is enforced is that this workforce will be formally recognized, ensuring their human rights and livelihoods are protected. They play a vital role in waste collection and sorting. They are also the primary workforce sorting plastic waste, distinguishing between recyclable and non-recyclable types. Therefore, if they understand the implications of imported plastic waste on domestic plastic waste circulation, they will be pivotal in ensuring more effective handling of domestic plastic waste, avoiding landfilling or incineration.
Nairobi, Kenya – The third meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-3) for a global agreement to end plastic pollution concluded today at the UNEP headquarters in Nairobi. Despite a mandate for a revised draft, Member States failed to reach an agreement on priorities for intersessional work ahead of INC-4, despite an 11th-hour attempt, jeopardizing significant advancements for the treaty process.
With the petrochemical influence in the treaty negotiations, including the ‘low ambition’ of a group of ‘like-minded’ plastic-producing countries, and the lack of ambition by the so-called ‘high ambition’ countries, the INC-3 concluded without concrete headway towards the mandate adopted at the fifth United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA 5.2) to negotiate a comprehensive and legally binding treaty that will cover measures along the entire life cycle of plastic.
After seven days of negotiations, the INC-3 missed the opportunity to set the stage for ambitious intersessional work on any priority, including the development of targets, baselines, and schedules for an overall reduction in plastic production, as well as strict reporting mechanisms to inform and monitor compliance with a global reduction target.
Despite the disappointing outcome of this INC, some countries, particularly from the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and the Africa group, strongly supported provisions on addressing plastic production, chemicals of concern, protecting human and environmental health, as well as human rights, recognizing the importance of Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge, and defining the path for a just transition. However, the influence of a group of fossil fuel and plastic-producing countries overpowered these perspectives.
Member States still have an opportunity to deliver one of the most significant environmental agreements in history by the end of 2024, but chances ahead are looking more formidable than it did after INC-2, now with only two more INCs remaining. The INCs must establish a strong conflict of interest policy and reassess how to deal with the countries deliberately blocking the ambition of the negotiation process.
Daniela Duran, Senior Legal Campaigner, Upstream Plastic Treaty, Center for International Environmental Law (USA & Switzeland), said:
"INC-3 is ending with a strong call for Member States not to lose sight of the essential treaty we require: one that makes concrete and legally binding commitments to reduce primary plastics production, safeguarding human and environmental health, and prioritizing communities affected by systemic pollution. We enter the road to INC-4 with this option on the table, with wide support from countries, but with roadblocks raised here by fossil fuel interests that didn’t enable a meaningful advance.”
Jacob Kean-Hammerson Oceans Campaigner, Environmental Investigation Agency (UK), said:
“With only two INCs left and little over a year to finalise the Treaty, the path towards a strong final agreement looks treacherous. These negotiations ended with more questions than answers about how we can bridge the political divide and craft a Treaty that stimulates positive change. As always the devil is in the details, so it is crucial that ambitious states stand firm against attempts to weaken progress by some of the world’s major oil and petrochemical producers. There will be no true advancement over the next year without a much stronger focus on addressing the problem with overproduction and the world’s addiction to plastics.”
Swathi Seshadri, Director of Programs and Team Lead (Oil and Gas), Centre for Financial Accountability (India), said:
"It was also disheartening that some member states were unwilling to work towards a Treaty covering the full lifecycle... It is disappointing and unfortunate that fossil fuel extracting and petrochemical countries were not able to see the life altering impacts that petrochemicals, the feedstocks to make plastics, has on people. It is time that member states resisting upstream measures realise that they are accountable to people who live in the vicinity of toxic petrochemical plants and not only concern themselves with the benefits that a handful of corporations will make. The only way forward is to regulate plastic production and eventually phase out virgin plastics."
Ana Rocha, Director of Global Plastics Program, Global Alliance for Incineration Alternative (Tanzania), said:
“These negotiations have so far failed to deliver on their promise laid out in the agreed upon mandate to advance a strong, binding plastics treaty that the world desperately needs. The bullies of the negotiations pushed their way through, despite the majority countries, with leadership from the African Bloc and other nations in the Global South, in support of an ambitious treaty.”
Jo Banner, Co-Founder and Co-Director, Descendants Project (USA), said:
“As a Black woman in the United States who also lives on the fenceline of petrochemical companies, I have seen first hand the devastating impacts the upstream production of plastic has had on my community and other vulnerable populations. I am here in Africa, of all places, to participate in the negotiations toward our liberation from the literal chains of plastic and confront the industry that wants to keep us enslaved to it.”
Taylen Reddy, #BreakFreeFromPlastic Youth Ambassador (South Africa), said:
“African youth are rising to confront and call out the plastics industry, and all those that profit from the plastics crisis that we are facing today. We recognise that this environmental catastrophe is something that we were born into, yet we remain hopeful and confident in ourselves to shift the narrative onto producer accountability and push for the dismantling of extractivism - which has become the norm due to centuries of exploitation of the planet and her people. This includes urging the importance of kicking out polluters and all those that are at INC to further their own corporate agenda. We NEED ambitious targets to reduce plastic production NOW!”
Larisa de Orbe, Colectiva Malditos Plásticos (México), said:
“Latin America is affected by the transboundary trade of toxic plastic waste from rich countries. This instrument should not duplicate the mandate and scope of the Basel Convention, but it should fill its gaps: definitively ban the export of plastic waste, and not allow pyrolysis - or other forms of incineration, co-processing, and false solutions such as chemical ‘recycling,’ and plastic credits.”
Indumathi, Asia delegation and an affiliate of the International Alliance of Waste Pickers (AIW), India.
"At INC3, We had three demands: to recognize waste picker contributions; formally define waste pickers and the informal sector; Just Transition should be cross-referenced throughout the documents. I am happy that waste pickers were a part of the draft-making process. The Just Transition discussion is yet to happen, and if it does, I will be very happy."
Additional reactions from BFFP members and allies (including additional countries and languages) are available here.
The week in detail
Most of the INC-3 week was spent in three contact groups: (1) Contact group 1 reviewed the first two parts of the Zero Draft: Part I (Preamble, objective, definitions, principles, and scope) and Part II (Primary plastic polymers, chemicals and polymers of concerns, problematic and avoidable plastics, exertions, product design -including reuse-, substitutes, extended producer responsibility, emissions, waste management, trade, existing plastic pollution, just transition, and transparency). (2) Contact group 2 focused on the second two parts: Part III (financing and capacity building), and Part IV (National plans, implementation and compliance, reporting, and monitoring). (3) Lastly, contact group 3 discussed the Synthesis Report containing elements not discussed at previous meetings and intersessional work.
During the week, civil organizations exposed the conflict of interest within the INC-3 process, starting with the publication of an analysis of the participants revealing that 143 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered for INC-3, a 36% increase from INC-2; some of whom were registered under six Member States delegations. The number of industry lobbyists was significantly greater than the 38 participants from the Scientists Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty. Earlier in the week, civil organizations also reacted to the formation of a “like-minded” group emerging among some plastic-producing countries.
The INC-3 agreed that the next round of negotiations (INC-4) will be held in Ottawa, Canada, on 21 - 30 April 2024, and INC-5 in Busan, Republic of Korea on 25 November to 1 December 2024. Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdiviezo (Ecuador) was confirmed as Chair for the rest of the INC process.
###
Notes to the editor
About the video: Ahead of INC-3, #BreakFreeFromPlastic movement, young people, civic society and allies march on the streets of Nairobi calling for drastic reduction in global plastic production.
---
About BFFP — #BreakFreeFromPlastic is a global movement envisioning a future free from plastic pollution. Since its launch in 2016, more than 2,700 organizations and 11,000 individual supporters from across the world have joined the movement to demand massive reductions in single-use plastics and push for lasting solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. BFFP member organizations and individuals share the values of environmental protection and social justice and work together through a holistic approach to bring about systemic change. This means tackling plastic pollution across the whole plastics value chain – from extraction to disposal – focusing on prevention rather than cure and providing effective solutions. www.breakfreefromplastic.org.
Global Press Contacts:
Regional Press Contacts:
17 November 2023, Nairobi, Kenya – Today, Break Free From Plastic and Global Alliance Against Incinerator Alternatives has released a comprehensive report with exclusive findings on Verra and Plastic Credit Exchange (PCX)'s plastic offsetting projects, shedding light on serious flaws in the concept.
Verra, an organisation that manages the largest voluntary carbon market programme, currently boasts 41 plastic collection and recycling projects across 16 countries. Although in its infancy, the market's potential is substantial. BFFP estimates that by 2030, Verra's existing projects could generate up to 9,323,459 credits, accumulating a potential revenue of $4.67 billion if each credit is sold for $500 per tonne.
The report reveals a concerning trend: over a fifth of Verra’s projects (22%) are sending plastic to cement kilns for incineration, raising alarms among experts about potential environmental consequences. The Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives warns that burning waste in cement kilns releases harmful pollutants, including heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants, impacting air quality and contaminating the food chain. As reported by SourceMaterial, 86% of projects on PCX’s database are sending waste to cement kilns.
Verra's plastic credit system is under intense scrutiny as the report uncovers significant flaws. An alarming 83% of plastic offsetting projects lack additionality, challenging the fundamental principle of credits supporting activities that wouldn't happen without the financial aid from the sale of credits. A critical concern is the financial backing from major plastic polluters and chemical firms, including Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Pepsico, Danone, Borealis AG, and Braskem Netherlands.
Equally troubling is the discovery that eight projects, constituting 19.5% of the total, completed a full seven-year crediting period, before being certified to sell credits. This backdating of credits makes a mockery of Verra’s claims that finance from the sale of plastic credits can enable the development of such waste management infrastructure ‘that is otherwise not viable without the revenue from the crediting mechanism’.
Experts emphasise that Verra's failure to ensure additionality undermines the integrity of the plastic credit system, as it approves projects already in operation. Exclusive interviews with founders of credit-generating projects provide firsthand accounts of the challenges and shortcomings within the system, highlighting the need for a thorough re-evaluation to ensure transparency, accountability, and adherence to impactful environmental practices.
The report also questions the claimed improvements in the lives of informal waste pickers, as 78% of projects make this assertion without clear evidence of actual improvements.
BreakFreeFromPlastic calls for increased transparency, stringent adherence to environmental standards, and a re-evaluation of plastic credit practices to ensure a meaningful impact on global plastic pollution. The report is available for download at [https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/smoke-and-mirrors/].
Key Quotes:
Neil Tangri, science and policy director at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives.
“Having sabotaged the climate change convention with worthless carbon credit schemes, the offsetting industry is now setting its sights on the plastic treaty, where it promises to wreak similar havoc. Offsetting allows polluters to escape responsibility, assuring the public that the problem is solved when in reality, it is growing out of control. Financing must go into badly-needed Just Transition funds for Global South societies, not private payoffs to consultancies and paper-pushing firms. If countries fail to learn the lessons of the disastrous carbon market, the plastics treaty will similarly be destined for history’s scrap heap.”
Emma Priestland, Corporate Campaign Coordinator of BreakFreeFromPlastic.
“Plastic offsetting is a sham and no company should engage in it. Plastic offsetting does not reduce plastic pollution or address how much plastic a company produces. By setting up plastic offsetting schemes, companies greenwash their image and avoid making real, substantive changes in the amount of single-use plastic they use.”
Verra is pushing to have plastic offsetting enshrined in a future plastic treaty when they only have one single project actually issuing credits. Plastic offsetting is a particularly shady form of greenwashing that lulls companies, policymakers and consumers into a false sense of security that their plastic footprint is being excused by someone, somewhere, collecting waste. But the terrible reality is it actually harming communities by sending plastic to be burned in cement kilns.
Axel Michaelowa, Senior Founding Partner at the consultancy Perspectives Climate Group and researcher at the University of Zurich.
“For many years, the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol has required a letter of prior consideration from projects that wanted to claim carbon credits in the future. This would be the minimum that any decent plastic credit standard would require. Thus, allocating plastic credits for projects that have been in operation since 2016 is perverse. In 2016, nobody was talking about plastic credits so it is inconceivable that these projects were planned taking into account the revenue from plastic credits.”
Therese Karlsson, PhD, IPEN’s Science and Technical Advisor.
“Plastics contain thousands of toxic chemicals that create health risks to humans and the environment. Heating and burning plastic wastes produces even more toxic chemicals and should not be considered an ethical corporate practice that provides environmental benefits. This situation shows the urgent need for reducing plastic production and eliminating toxic chemicals from plastics.”
Yuyun Ismawati, Senior Advisor of Nexus3 Foundation and IPEN Plastic Advisor
“When plastic credits include the utilisation or conversion of low-grade plastics into fuel, RDF, coprocessing in cement kilns, or cofiring in coal-fired power plants, the chemicals in plastics spread wider and expose more toxic pollutants to the workers and the communities around the facilities. Unfortunately, the cement industry rarely discloses its emissions nor releases them publicly. The plastic credit claimed for coprocessing or cofiring has more costly negative health impacts on the communities than the credits’ value. Verra should exclude plastic credit claims from false solutions in their Plastic Standard.”
Marian Ledesma, Zero Waste Campaigner, Greenpeace Philippines
“Plastic credit companies aggravate the plastics crisis by giving corporations the license to pollute. By burning plastic in cement kilns, it damages ecosystems, harms our health and drives climate change, while letting plastic production remain unrestrained. Communities in the Philippines and elsewhere should not have to bear the costs of corporate addiction to plastic. Countries must reject plastic credits to protect people and nature.”
For media inquiries, please contact:
Claire Arkin, Global Communications Lead, GAIA: claire@no-burn.org | +1 973 444 4869 (WhatsApp)
Devayani Khare, Regional Communications Officer: devayani@breakfreefromplastic.org.
#breakfreefromplastic (BFFP) is a global movement envisioning a future free from plastic pollution. Since its launch in 2016, more than 2,500 organizations representing millions of supporters around the world have joined the movement to demand massive reductions in single-use plastics and push for lasting solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. BFFP member organizations and individuals share the shared values of environmental protection and social justice and work together through a holistic approach to bring about systemic change. This means tackling plastic pollution across the whole plastics value chain—from extraction to disposal—focusing on prevention rather than cure and providing effective solutions. www.breakfreefromplastic.org
GAIA is a worldwide alliance of more than 1,000 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries. With our work we aim to catalyze a global shift towards environmental justice by strengthening grassroots social movements that advance solutions to waste and pollution. We envision a just, zero waste world built on respect for ecological limits and community rights, where people are free from the burden of toxic pollution, and resources are sustainably conserved, not burned or dumped. http://no-burn.org
November 15, 2023
NAIROBI — 143 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists have registered to attend the third session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-3) to advance a global plastics treaty, gaining access to the negotiations at a time when the talks are entering a critical phase.
A new analysis from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), supported by Greenpeace, Beyond Petrochemicals, International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), and Break Free From Plastic, is based on the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) provisional list of INC-3 participants, shows the magnitude of corporate lobbying influence at the negotiations. It comes after civil society organizations and scientists have petitioned UNEP and the INC Secretariat to safeguard the negotiating process from industry influence and to implement strong Conflict of Interest policies.
“Time and time again, we have seen how industry influence has blocked substantive progress in environmental treaty negotiations, including in spaces like the climate COP,” says Delphine Levi Alvares, Global Petrochemicals Lead at CIEL “At INC-2, the Secretariat stated that there were ‘not a lot of fossil fuel companies in the venue.’ Our analysis shows that is simply not true — their presence is only increasing. We must course-correct immediately to ensure that the plastics treaty is grounded in science and does not become a fossil-fueled treaty.”
The analysis finds that:
CIEL’s estimate is likely to be conservative, as our methodology relies on delegates to the talks disclosing their own connections to fossil fuel or chemical industry interests, and many lobbyists may choose to obscure that link.
The mandate to negotiate the plastics treaty calls for a comprehensive approach that ‘addresses the full life cycle of plastics.’ To achieve this goal, it is essential to develop a treaty that recognizes that the start of the plastic life cycle begins with the extraction of fossil fuels. The vast majority of chemicals used to produce plastics are derived from fossil fuels, and the companies that dominate these industries have a strong incentive to ensure that the treaty does not impact their underlying business models.
INC-3 marks the scheduled midpoint in the negotiations, and it’s the first time that negotiators will turn to treaty text. The Zero Draft contains options that include if and how to address plastic production and approaches to chemical management.
The fossil fuel industry has long viewed plastics as a lifeline. Between 2000 and 2019, global plastic polymer production doubled, reaching 460 million tonnes (Mt) per year, and it is anticipated to almost triple from 2019 levels by 2050. Meaningful measures to address the plastics crisis necessitate a full life cycle approach that includes substantially reducing plastic production.
“The fossil fuel and petrochemical industries are heavily resisting people- and planet-saving measures in the global plastics treaty. Their growing presence in the negotiations is very telling. A strong and ambitious agreement that will cut plastic production by at least 75% by 2040 means they will need to find another way to satisfy shareholders. We urge UN member states to listen to the millions of people around the world who want an end to plastic pollution, rather than the fossil fuel lobby,” says Graham Forbes, Greenpeace Head of Delegation to the negotiations and Global Campaign Lead for Greenpeace USA.
Other plastics interests represented at INC-3 but not included in the analysis include product manufacturers, fast-moving consumer goods companies, producers of plastic alternatives, or purveyors of false solutions to the plastics crisis, such as chemical recyclers, plastic credit companies, or ineffective clean-up technologies providers.
For the full scope of plastics’ impacts on health, human rights, and the environment across the entire life cycle to be taken into account, the participation of civil society organizations, Indigenous Peoples, women and youth, independent scientists, and workers must be prioritized in the negotiation process.
“The unchecked political power of the petrochemical industry is already wreaking havoc on communities worldwide and it can’t be allowed to infect treaty negotiations,” said Heather McTeer Toney, Executive Director of Beyond Petrochemicals. “The credibility of these proceedings depends on shared trust, a quality lacking in the petrochemical industry. Those participating in the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee process have an obligation to be good actors working in the best interest of our planet. The business model of the petrochemical industry is built on sacrificing the health and well-being of both our planet and its people. This dangerous level of influence must be addressed while we continue to elevate the voices of frontline communities who the petrochemical industry hopes to quiet.”
Protecting public participation will not be enough — steps must also be taken to counterbalance the industry’s outsized influence over policy negotiations. Civil society organizations and independent scientists are leading the call for UNEP to adopt a strong conflict of interest policy and an accountability framework.
“That 143 of fossil fuel and chemical companies lobbyists have been admitted into the negotiations, and that they far outnumber our independent scientists, is highly problematic,” added Bethanie Carney Almroth, Professor in ecotoxicology and zoophysiology at Gothenburg University. Member of the Steering Committee of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty. “Indigenous knowledge holders and scientists have already called for steps to put people before polluters. Negotiations must be based on robust, independent science and knowledge. Now it is time for UNEP to take action. They must adopt a strong conflict of interest policy, including an accountability framework, protect spaces around the negotiations from industry influence, and guarantee seats for indigenous knowledge holders and independent scientists. Only then can we guarantee a process that lays the groundwork for the best policy outcome possible.”
More quotes from civil society organizations and rightsholders are included below.
Von Hernandez, Global Coordinator for the #BreakFreeFromPlastic movement, said:
“This is not the first time that fossil fuel interests have tried to influence a process intended to check and curtail the pollution they have spawned and created. We have seen this many times in the climate treaty process, and lamentably, it is being repeated here. That they have descended in great numbers in Nairobi shows what and how much is at stake here. People and planet must come first — they cannot be left hostage to these predatory interests.”
Pamela Miller, Co-Chair of the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), said:
“Fossil fuel, chemicals, and plastics corporations are here en masse to ensure that they can exponentially increase toxic plastics production at the expense of our health and that of future generations. We must have a strong, health-protective treaty that is based on independent science and free of these conflicts of interests.”
Swathi Seshadri, Oil and Gas Team Lead at the Centre for Financial Accountability, said:
“It is an antithesis to have polluters in the room while negotiating a phase-out of the extremely polluting polymer and plastics industry. Apparently, all observers are not equal. That there are far more requests for the floor from Civil Society Organisations and Rightsholders as compared to representatives of the business community, is testimony that they have direct ways of communication. While we are waiting for our turn to speak or the benevolence of regional groups to open their doors to us, polluters are openly influencing the outcome of a Treaty on plastics, which has life-altering impacts on frontline communities and those who have been historically dispossessed.”
Frankie Orona, Executive Director of the Society of Native Nations, said:
“The fossil fuel and petrochemical industries that have been sacrificing our communities for generations in the name of profit and so-called progress have no business in these negotiations. These corporations and the nations that enable them are solely responsible for the triple planetary crisis of biodiversity loss, pollution, and climate change. Their continued violence against Indigenous, and Black and Brown communities around the world, as well as the health, well-being, and human rights of all, cannot be overstated. It is a crime in and of itself that they continue to exert unjust influence in these negotiations.”
Jacob Kean-Hammerson, Ocean Campaigner at the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), said:
“If you didn’t know it before, we are now waking up to the fact that plastics are fossil fuels and we are seeing the same industry playbook being deployed here that has undermined the climate negotiations. The increasing presence of industry threatens to derail an ambitious plastics treaty. We must stand firm in calling out the vested interests and corporate greenwashing narrative.”
Methodology Note:
For this analysis, we used the provisional list of participants at INC-3, released by UNEP this week, scraped and analyzed line by line.
We considered a fossil fuel or chemical industry lobbyist to be anyone representing the interests of a fossil fuel company, chemical company, and its shareholders. This included organizations and trade associations representing the fossil fuel or chemical industries or organizations including associations, non-profits, or think tanks that received significant support from those industries, or included industry figures in their governance or have a track record of lobbying for pro-industry positions. All delegates at INC-3 are assumed to be attempting to influence the negotiations in some way.
Delegates at INC-3 register to attend the negotiations with a delegation including national delegations, intergovernmental organizations, and Civil Society Organizations. Businesses are not allowed to register directly to attend and so often appear with the delegation of trade associations or in country’s delegations. Delegates may provide further information when they register which may include their role at another company or organization or their job title. Companies and organizations were researched using open sources including their websites, lobbying databases, and reputable reporting.
To establish a delegate’s link to the fossil fuel or chemical industry we relied solely on the information provided in the UNEP provisional list of attendees, including both their delegation and any further affiliation the delegate disclosed. This means that our estimate is likely to be conservative as some delegates may choose not to disclose their ties to industry.
news@breakfreefromplastic.org
For immediate distribution
Nairobi, Nov 13, 2023 - At the opening plenary of the third round of negotiations on the Global Plastics Treaty (INC-3) that started this morning in Nairobi, the government of Iran took the floor on behalf of a “group of like-minded countries” they first announced as the ‘Global Coalition for Plastics Sustainability’ during the INC-3 preparatory meeting on Saturday. While the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia also referred to this new coalition in their statement on Saturday, no further information has been publicly shared about this new formation, and no other purported members identified by Iran (the Russian Federation, Bahrain, China, Cuba, and “many more”) have spoken out publicly about it.
We are not surprised 😒to see a 'like-minded' group officially coming together in this mid-term round of negotiations for a global #PlasticsTreaty... 🏭👎 #INC3 #BeatPlasticPollution #BreakFreeFromPlastic RT @EIA_News @ciel_tweets @cfa_ind @greenpeace pic.twitter.com/2pIUTx3ZQq
— #BreakFreeFromPlastic (@brkfreeplastic) November 14, 2023
The #BreakFreeFromPlastic movement responds to this announcement with the following statement:
Given the urgent need for substantive discussions on the Global Plastics Treaty this week, the announcement of a coalition by Iran, Saudi Arabia, and [if confirmed] Russia shouldn’t come as a surprise. All three countries are leading producers and exporters of fossil fuels (1), which comprise 99% of all plastics (2), and all major producers of plastics and petrochemicals (3). Because confronting the plastic crisis demands reductions, both in plastic production and in the use of fossil fuels for that production (4), these countries have repeatedly sought to obstruct and delay progress within the negotiations, pushing a waste management focus and rejecting work on the upstream part of the plastic pollution issue. This is in stark contradiction to the clear, comprehensive, and ambitious mandate established by the world at UNEA 5.2, which aims at covering the entire life cycle of plastic.
What is more surprising and disappointing, if true, is Iran’s assertion that China is part of this coalition. While China hasn’t confirmed this alignment, such a step would be incompatible with their ongoing efforts to play a larger leadership role in the international community (5), their early and active measures to tackle plastic pollution at the domestic level (6), and their commitment to drastically reducing CO2 emissions (7).
Given the rapidly increasing contribution of plastic and petrochemicals to those greenhouse gas emissions at the global level (8), any country’s alignment with the obstruction efforts by Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia is fundamentally at odds with a genuine commitment to addressing the intersecting planetary crises of climate change, plastic pollution, and global biodiversity loss.
The #BreakFreeFromPlastic movement and its more than 3,000 member organizations worldwide will continue to be vigilant throughout the negotiation process to ensure member states deliver a strong Plastics Treaty that is not undermined by fossil fuel interests and instead addresses the full life cycle of plastics and drastically cuts global plastic production.
—
Signed by #BreakFreeFromPlastic treaty leading organizations: Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA), Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Greenpeace.
###
#BreakFreeFromPlastic is a global movement envisioning a future free from plastic pollution. Since its launch in 2016, more than 3,000 organizations and 11,000 individual supporters from across the world have joined the movement to demand massive reductions in single-use plastics and push for lasting solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. BFFP member organizations and individuals share values of environmental protection and social justice and work together through a holistic approach to bring about systemic change. This means tackling plastic pollution across the whole plastics value chain—from extraction to disposal—focusing on prevention rather than cure and providing effective solutions.
Media Contacts
Notes to the editor
(1) International Energy Agency, Oil 2023 & Medium-Term Gas Report 2023
(2) Zaman et al., Plastics: are they part of the zero-waste agenda or the toxic-waste agenda?, 2021
(3) Bauer et al., Petrochemicals and climate change: Powerful fossil fuel lock-ins and interventions for transformative change, 2023
(4) Persson et al., Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities, 2022
(5) Including their helpful role in the Basel Convention amendments, building on their Operation National Sword (waste trade bans)
(6) In particular through the 14th Five-Year Plan for circular economy development and 14th Five Year Action Plan for Plastic Pollution Control
(7) China aims to peak carbon dioxide emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060.
(8) CIEL, Reducing Plastic Production to Achieve Climate Goals: Key Considerations for the Plastics Treaty Negotiations, 2023
On November 13, 2023, Emma Priestland of Break Free From Plastic was invited by Greenpeace to be part of the panel at an INC3 press briefing. These are notes from her presentation, making a case for real solutions when drafting the Global Plastics Treaty:
The BFFP movement represents over 3000 organizations and 13,000 individual supporters worldwide working on fighting plastic pollution across the whole plastic impact chain. This movement has helped us get to where we are today - with members working on every step of this treaty process. Over 200 NGOs have signed a manifesto for a future free from plastic pollution - stressing the urgent need for deep cuts in plastic production.
Together, our movement has exposed the scale, impacts and culprits of plastic pollution.
One way we do this is through brand audits - a huge citizen science project. Together we collected plastic pollution over 5 years in 87 countries, documenting the brands on over 2 million pieces of plastic.
Through this effort, we identified the world’s top polluters. It’s no coincidence that the world’s top plastic polluters are also the largest users and producers of single-use plastics: Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestle, and Unilever.
This work should give us hope - the clear link between corporate single-use plastic usage and what is found in the environment suggests that with clear binding rules and targets that restrict single-use plastic products, and drastically reduce plastic production, we can reduce this pollution.
Our movement also works together to highlight and expose false solutions to this crisis.
Today, a new investigation by SourceMaterial, with input from many movement members has come out that exposes plastic credits and offsetting as a false solution. We will be releasing a more detailed report into this on Wednesday analysing the publicly available databases of Verra and PCX.
Serious flaws were found in additionality, transparency, adherence to basic auditing requirements, and the stated purpose of plastic being removed from the environment.
Plastic credits are predominantly generated through burning plastic waste in cement kilns (co-processing). 86% of PCX credits are generated from co-processing waste
Burning waste in cement kilns leads to emissions of heavy metals, particulates, and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as dioxins, and even chlorine gas. This can not be considered the removal of plastic pollution - only transforming it into a different kind.
There are serious doubts about project additionality - a key concept in offsetting. Additionality’ is the requirement that the credits are paying for an activity that would not have happened without the credits’ financial support
83% of projects on Verra’s database have already been operating before they have even sold a single credit. Making a mockery of Verra’s claims that finance from the sale of plastic credits can enable the development of such waste management infrastructure ‘that is otherwise not viable without the revenue from the crediting mechanism.
Our movement doesn’t only work on exposing the devastating impacts of plastic pollution and false solutions. We also develop and uplift solutions.
We are demonstrating Reuse Systems Solutions - that enable the delivery of goods to consumers when plastic production is drastically reduced and single-use plastics are no longer used.
We urgently need to scale these solutions - and for the treaty to prioritise reduction and promote reuse systems over recycling, bio-based, biodegradable or compostable plastics.
The treaty needs global definitions and minimum design and performance criteria for Reuse; Refill; Repair; and Reuse System/s, as well as targets, baselines and timelines for these. The treaty should incorporate sector-specific and material-agnostic reuse targets, along with measures to phase down plastic production, ban single-use plastics, and restrict harmful plastic polymers and chemicals.
All reuse systems must enable Just Transitions, and recognise the rights, knowledge and expertise of Indigenous Peoples, traditional knowledge holders, waste pickers and other informal waste workers, vulnerable and marginalised communities.
We know that this treaty is a heavy political lift, but civil society is behind you every step of the way, as well as the millions of people around the world that our organisations represent. We believe that this transformative treaty is possible.
