Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Flood Final Scheduled Round of Global Plastics Treaty Negotiations

• 220 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists are registered to attend INC-5, the highest at any negotiation for the plastics treaty so far analyzed by CIEL, more than the previous high of 196 lobbyists identified at INC-4.
• Fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists taken together would be the largest single delegation at INC-5, significantly outnumbering the host Republic of Korea’s 140 representatives. Lobbyists also outnumber the delegations from the European Union and all of its Member States combined (191) as well as the 89 representatives from Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) more than two to one and 165 delegates from the whole Latin American and Caribbean region (GRULAC), respectively.
• 16 lobbyists were identified in national delegations, including those from China, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Finland, Iran, Kazakhstan, and Malaysia.
• Dow (5) and ExxonMobil (4) were among the best-represented fossil fuel and chemical companies with numerous lobbyists attending the talks.
• Chemical and fossil fuel industry lobbyists outnumber the Scientists’ Coalition for An Effective Plastic Treaty by three to one, and the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus by almost nine to one.

With each INC, we have seen an increase in the number of fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lobbyists, but the efforts to effect the future treaty extend well beyond the negotiations themselves. Reports of intimidation and interference have surfaced, including allegations of industry representatives intimidating independent scientists participating in the negotiations and pressure on country delegations by industry to replace technical experts with industry-friendly representatives.

While civil society organizations, independent scientists, and rights holders face significant financial and logistical barriers to participation, the fossil fuel and chemicals industry mobilizes significant financial and human resources not only to influence negotiations, but also to privately lobby leaders and discreetly back positions held by petrostate allies who openly defend their shared financial interests.

“From the moment the gavel came down at UNEA-5.2 to now, we have watched industry lobbyists surrounding the negotiations with sadly well-known tactics of obstruction, distraction, intimidation, and misinformation,” says Delphine Levi Alvares, Global Petrochemical Campaign Coordinator at the Center for International Environmental Law. “Their strategy — lifted straight from the climate negotiations playbook — is designed to preserve the financial interests of countries and companies who are putting their fossil-fueled profits above human health, human rights, and the future of the planet. The mandate for this treaty is very clear: ending plastic pollution. Ever-growing evidence from independent scientists, frontline communities, and Indigenous Peoples clearly shows that this won’t be achieved without reducing plastic production. The choice is clear — our lives or their bottom line.”

Pro-plastic rhetoric was on full display in the lead up to and during the early days of INC-5, with key industry associations trumpeting the ‘massive societal benefits plastics’ and Member States claiming ‘the sovereign right to exploit resources of states’. However, the numbers tell a different story: plastic production accounts for a mere 0.6% (USD 627 billion) of the global economy, and reducing our dependence on plastics is unlikely to impact economic growth. Ahead of INC-5, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rightsacknowledged that plastic pollution is incompatible with the enjoyment of the right to development and the right to a healthy environment.

“Plastic markets are already oversupplied. The world simply cannot afford to continue producing more plastics as a means of sustaining fossil fuel dependency ” says Daniela Duran Gonzalez, Senior Legal Campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law. “Shrinking demand, closing facilities, diminishing profit margins — expanding plastic production is bad business. If Member States are truly committed to fair and equitable development they would support mandatory rules to reduce production, starting with a halt to the construction of new production facilities. This is a moment for courage — for our economy, our planet, our climate, and the rights of present and future generations ”

What’s transpired at plastic treaty talks is not dissimilar to what we’ve observed at recent biological diversityand climate talks. Once again, industry-friendly actors are working to infiltrate the process and delay substantive progress.

“We cannot let industry-friendly tactics derail and delay these negotiations like they’ve been able to do in other multilateral spaces,” concludes Rachel Radvany, Environmental Health Campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law.  “Countries must seize this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and use every tool at their disposal to prevent obstructionism and end corporate capture of this negotiation. We must secure a treaty that includes strong conflict of interest protections, lobbying disclosures, and prevent vested interests from influencing the implementation of the agreement.”

Reflections from Supporting Organizations

Juressa Lee, Co-Chair, International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Plastics (IIPFP)

“Indigenous Peoples already experience barriers to full and meaningful participation in these talks, from registration to attendance to speaking rights to recognising us as Rights Holders. As a caucus, we’ve had to backfill needs where we believe UNEP has shirked their responsibilities to facilitate procedural justice. For us to be competing with Industry representatives in and outside of Member State delegations for space is a cruelty. For polluters’ attendance to be marginalising Indigenous Rights is a contradiction of the entire purpose of this meeting.

Yuyun Ismawati, Co-chair, International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) 

“IPEN continues to be concerned about the overly influential role that the plastics, petrochemicals, and fossil fuels industries play at the Plastics Treaty talks. As the recent California lawsuit shows, these industries have lied for decades about plastic recycling. As another recent report notes, the companies allied to ‘solve’ plastic pollution have produced 1,000 times more plastic than they cleaned up. We must eliminate industry conflicts of interest from these proceedings. It’s time for delegates to understand that we cannot trust these industries – their only agenda is to maintain their profits at any cost.”

Deborah Sy, Head of Global Public Policy and Strategy at GGTC, Stop Tobacco Pollution Alliance (STPA) 

“It’s no surprise the plastics treaty struggles with corporate influence, given the tobacco industry’s continued role as an observer—despite clear FCTC guidelines against such interference. This disregard for established rules signals a deeper lack of integrity, allowing corporate interests to corrupt decision-making processes. The Conference of the Parties to the FCTC, in noting the INC’s work on the plastics treaty, emphasized the need to protect tobacco-related environmental policies from the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry. Cigarette butts, one of the most littered and harmful forms of avoidable plastic waste, must be banned immediately as part of any serious effort to combat plastic pollution. To advance a plastics treaty that aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals, the INC must adopt integrity principles and commit to upholding existing rules and to developing sector-specific measures to prevent corporate capture.”

Ana Rocha, Director of Global Plastics Program, Global Alliance for Incinerators Alternatives (GAIA)

“Waste pickers, Indigenous Peoples, youth leaders, and frontline community members have left their families to travel thousands of miles to be here, not to protect their business interests, but because they are fighting for survival. The fact that they are forced to compete for the ear of their representatives with the very industry that is poisoning their communities is a serious injustice.”

Von Hernandez, Global Coordinator, Break Free From Plastic (BFFP)

“Allowing fossil fuel and petrochemical companies to exert their influence in these negotiations is like letting foxes guard the henhouse. Their oversized presence threatens to turn a critical environmental agreement into a charade, undermining serious efforts to curb plastic production and pollution. Government negotiators must stand firm and ensure these talks are not hijacked by those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo.”

Graham Forbes, Greenpeace Head of Delegation to the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations and Global Campaign Lead for Greenpeace USA

“The analysis exposes a desperate industry willing to sacrifice our planet and poison our children to protect its profits. Fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists, aided by a handful of member states, must not dictate the outcome of these critical negotiations. The moral, economic, and scientific imperatives are clear: by the end of the week, member states must deliver a Global Plastics Treaty that prioritizes human health and a liveable planet over CEO payouts.  The global majority demands a strong agreement that cuts plastic production and ends single-use plastics.”

Bethanie Carney Almroth, Professor of Ecotoxicology at the University of Gothenburg, Scientist Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty

“The presence of pro-plastics lobbyists at the treaty negotiations has led to an influx of mis- and disinformation that has muddied the waters and slowed progress. What we need is independent evidence-based science to support negotiations. Going forward, it will be essential to implement strong conflict of Interest approaches for all expert groups to provide trusted science and expertise to member states and to support them in meeting their obligations to the treaty.”

YU Sammy, Green Korea United

“Eight out of ten citizens in Korea want a reduction in plastic production, yet the negotiation halls for the Global Plastics Treaty are packed with petrochemical industry lobbyists. Civil society observers face significant limitations, as they must line up at least an hour before the meetings just to secure entry into the venue.
The issue of the petrochemical industry sending large delegations to lobbying within the negotiation halls has been raised repeatedly. The bigger problem is that it continues to occur because no effective measures have been taken to address it.”

Methodology Note

For this analysis, we used the provisional list of participants at INC-5, released by UNEP this week, scraped and analyzed line by line.

CIEL’s estimate is likely to be conservative, as the methodology relies on delegates at the talks to disclose their ties to fossil fuel or chemical industry interests, and some lobbyists may choose not to disclose their connection.

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-5 are assumed to be attempting to influence the negotiations in some way.

Delegates at INC-5 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. Any errors by UNEP in compiling the data may impact our analysis. This means that our estimate is likely to be conservative as some delegates may choose not to disclose their ties to industry.

Media Contact

Cate Bonacini, press@ciel.org, +1-202-742-5847 (desk), +1-510-520-9109 (WhatsApp/Signal)

Lindsey Jurca, press@ciel.org

Follow CIEL on Social Media: BlueSky, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, Twitter