By Bunmi Yekini
With just a day left in the plastics treaty negotiations, countries and civil society groups have rejected the Chair’s latest proposed text, describing it as “unacceptable” and “a surrender to fossil fuel interests.”
The new draft, which critics say caters to petro-states and the fossil fuel industry, notably omits an article on reducing plastic production, a core element many say is essential to tackling pollution across the full life-cycle of plastics.
Ana Rocha, GAIA’s Global Plastics Policy Lead, was blunt in her assessment:
“This new text sends a clear message to the world: we do not care about your health. We do not care about the science. We do not care about human rights. We do not care about your future. We only care about consensus.”
Mohamed Kamal of Egypt’s Greenish Foundation agreed, saying the provisions “do not provide meaningful ways to end plastic pollution.”
Panama’s lead negotiator, Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, delivered one of the strongest rebukes of the day:
“Our redlines and the redlines of the majority of countries represented in this room were not only stomped, they were spat on and they were burned. This is not about closing a treaty at any cost. It is about closing a wound that we’re leaving open in people’s lungs, in our rivers, in our oceans. But the text presented here makes that wound fatal and we will not accept it. This is repulsive. It is not ambition, it is surrender, and we will not sell out future generations for a text as weak as this.”
Civil society groups also criticised the Chair’s drafting process, accusing it of lacking transparency and sidelining ambitious member states. SiPeng of Malaysia’s C4 Center described the process as “undemocratic” and designed to “leave civil society and ambitious Member States in the dark.”
After over three hours of plenary criticism, the meeting ended with regional consultations ahead of a Heads of Delegation session.
Thais Carvajal of Alianza Basura Cero Ecuador summed up the position of many campaigners:
“No treaty is better than a bad treaty. If we come out of INC-5.2 without an agreed text, it means ambitious Member States stood up and refused to compromise to fossil fuel interests. If they take that brave step, civil society will have their backs.”