The Federal Government has reaffirmed its commitment to the timely completion of the Section Three of the 61-kilometre Enugu–Port Harcourt Expressway in Enugu State.
The Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, who led a federal government delegation to the site of the road project as part of a wider Citizens’ Engagement tour of the South East, said that modern road infrastructure is vital to economic growth, improved safety, and citizens’ welfare.
Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris
“This project is a visible testament to government’s resolve to complete strategic highways nationwide for the benefit of Nigerians,” said Idris.
Under construction by the CGC Nigeria Limited, the 61-kilometre dual carriageway (122 km in total) is valued at ₦100.8 billion. The Enugu-bound section has been completed, while work on the remaining stretch is ongoing, according to the Director of Highways, Southeast, Tony Mbiko.
In a related development, the Minister has described the Federal Government’s Oncology Centre in Enugu as world class and is a proof of the commitment of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to delivering life-changing health infrastructure to Nigerians.
The Minister stated while leading a high-powered delegation to inspect the newly established Oncology Centre in Enugu.
Commissioned only weeks ago by the Ministers of Health and Finance, the facility houses one of the most advanced cancer treatment machines in the world – previously only accessible abroad or in Lagos.
He noted that President Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda is making world-class healthcare a reality across the country, with six such centres planned nationwide – three already operational.
During the visit, the delegation met patients receiving treatment, including a woman who had previously travelled long distances for care but can now access top-quality treatment in Enugu.
“This is democracy delivering tangible dividends. Our visit allows us to hear directly from citizens, see the impact for ourselves, and ensure these facilities are maintained for public benefit,” said Idris.
The tour also included inspections of federal road projects.
Similarly, the Executive Governor of Enugu State, Peter Mbah, has lauded the recently launched Renewed Hope Ward Development Programme of the Federal Government, an initiative designed to advance inclusive development across the 8,809 wards of the country.
Governor Mbah stated this when a Federal Government delegation on a Citizens’ Engagement tour of the South East, led by the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, paid him a courtesy visit.
The Renewed Hope Ward Development, according to the Governor, is a laudable initiative that aligns closely with the grassroot-oriented agenda of the government of Enugu state.
Endorsed recently by the National Economic Council, the programme is one of the fresh initiatives of the President Bola Tinubu administration in its pursuit of eradicating poverty and hunger, and stimulating economic growth in the rural areas.
Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Renaissance Africa Energy Company Limited, Mr. Tony Attah, has stated that Nigerian stakeholders in the oil and gas industry are now better positioned than in the last five years to optimise Nigeria’s vast hydrocarbon natural resources, due to changes that have been made by the Federal Government.
Attah made these comments in a panel discussion at the 50th anniversary celebration of the Nigerian Association of Petroleum Explorationists (NAPE) in Lagos on Thursday, August 14, 2025, an event that climaxed with the bestowal of the Strategic Investment in Nigeria’s Energy Future award on Renaissance and Industry Icon Award on Chairman, Renaissance, Dr. Layi Fatona.
L-R: Executive Vice President, Finance of Renaissance Africa Energy Company Limited, Mr. Olusegun Banwo; Renaissance Chairman, Dr. Layi Fatona; President, Nigerian Association of Petroleum Explorationists, (NAPE), Mr. Johnbosco Uche; and Group CEO of Aradel Holdings, Mr. Gbite Falade, at NAPE’s 50th anniversary conference in Lagos… on Thursday
Lauding key policies of the Federal Government, Attah, represented by Renaissance’s Executive Vice President Finance, Mr. Olusegun Banwo, said, “Today, several things have lined up well for our industry. Over the last 50 years, we have built a critical mass of extremely talented Nigerians across all levels of the oil and gas industry. That is a great thing to have happened to us. How we now leverage that talent to move this country forward is in our hands.”
He said, “Also, we have the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development (NOGIG) Act; the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) and, probably, most importantly, the NNPC Limited, because the changes that have occurred in NNPC are things that many of us could never have dreamt of. But they are here. We have a board that is populated by extremely competent and experienced people. We have a management that comes from the international oil companies, they are highly experienced, and they are willing to partner. So, all of those are lined up.
“The challenge before the industry today,” Attah asserts, “is to make sure that the organisations playing in the industry can stand very critical scrutiny of their management and their boards. That we have shareholders that are there to ‘grow the pie’; that we have boards of directors that are competent and credible and independent, able to take independent decisions; and, above all, management that, as individuals, are going to lead by competence and character.”
These, he said, would define the next decades of the oil and gas industry.
According to Attah, with all the unfolding changes in the industry, attracting finance would not be a challenge. “When people give money to an organisations, it is not really the asset that they are financing. It is the people that they are giving the money to. Before a financial institution will lend out money, it is going to take a very critical look at the management and the board of the organisation. Let us ensure that our organisations can stand that scrutiny.”
Attah enjoined other stakeholders in Nigeria oil and gas industry to emulate the vision and courage of Renaissance which completed, in March 2025, the purchase of all the shares of the Shell Petroleum Development Company.
Speaking on his company’s vision, Attah said Renaissance was more than just a name. “Ours is Renaissance for people, for country and for Africa to unleash a new beginning that enables energy security and industrialisation in a sustainable manner.” He said Renaissance was poised to set a standard for the oil and gas industry in Nigeria and across the continent.
NAPE President, Mr. Johnbosco Uche, said Renaissance won the Strategic Investment in Nigeria’s Energy Future award because its capital projects and investments have significantly shaped the national energy landscape.
A new study maps the planetary boundary of “functional biosphere integrity” in spatial detail and over centuries. It finds that 60 percent of global land areas are now already outside the locally defined safe zone, and 38 percent are even in the high-risk zone.
The study was led by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) together with BOKU University in Vienna and published in the renowned journal One Earth.
Biosphere
Functional biosphere integrity refers to the plant world’s ability to co-regulate the state of the Earth system. This requires that the plant world is able to acquire enough energy through photosynthesis to maintain the material flows of carbon, water and nitrogen that support the ecosystems and their many networked processes, despite today’s massive human interference.
Together with biodiversity loss and climate change, functional integrity forms the core of the Planetary Boundaries analytical framework for a safe operating space for humanity.
“There is an enormous need for civilisation to utilise the biosphere – for food, raw materials and, in future, also for climate protection,” says Fabian Stenzel, lead author of the study and member of the PIK research group Terrestrial Safe Operating Space.
“After all, human demand for biomass continues to grow – and on top of that, the cultivation of fast-growing grasses or trees for producing bioenergy with carbon capture and storage is considered by many to be an important supporting strategy for stabilising climate. It is therefore becoming even more important to quantify the strain we’re already putting on the biosphere – in a regionally differentiated manner and over time – to identify overloads. Our research is paving the way for this,” notes Stenzel.
Two indicators to measure the strain and the risk
The study builds on the latest update of the Planetary Boundaries framework published in 2023. “The framework now squarely puts energy flows from photosynthesis in the world’s vegetation at the centre of those processes that co-regulate planetary stability”, explains Wolfgang Lucht, head of PIK’s Earth System Analysis department and coordinator of the study. “These energy flows drive all of life – but humans are now diverting a sizeable fraction of them to their own purposes, disturbing nature’s dynamic processes.”
The stress this causes in the Earth system can be measured by the proportion of natural biomass productivity that humanity channels into its own uses – through harvested crops, residues and timber – but also the reduction in photosynthetic activity caused by land cultivation and sealing. The study added to this measure a second powerful indicator of biosphere integrity: An indicator of risk of ecosystem destabilisation records complex structural changes in vegetation and in the biosphere’s water, carbon and nitrogen balances.
Europe, Asia and North America particularly affected
Based on the global biosphere model LPJmL, which simulates water, carbon and nitrogen flows on a daily basis at a resolution of half a degree of longitude/latitude, the study provides a detailed inventory for each individual year since the 1600, based on changes in climate and human land use.
The research team not only computed, mapped and compared the two indicators for functional integrity of the biosphere, but also evaluated them by conducting a mathematical comparison with other measures from the literature for which “critical thresholds” are known. This resulted in each area being assigned a status based on local tolerance limits of ecosystem change: Safe Operating Space, Zone of Increasing Risk or High-Risk Zone.
The model calculation shows that worrying developments began as early as 1600 in the mid- latitudes. By 1900, the proportion of global land area where ecosystem changes went beyond the locally defined safe zone, or were even in the high-risk zone, was 37 and 14 percent respectively, compared to the 60 and 38 percent we see today. Industrialisation was beginning to take its toll; land use affected the state of the Earth system much earlier than climate warming. At present, this biosphere boundary has been transgressed on almost all land surface – primarily in Europe, Asia and North America – that underwent strong land cover conversion, mainly due to agriculture.
PIK Director Rockström: Impetus for international climate policy
“This first world map showing the overshoot of the boundary for functional integrity of the biosphere, depicting both human appropriation of biomass and ecological disruption, is a breakthrough from a scientific perspective, offering a better overall understanding of planetary boundaries,” says Johan Rockström, PIK Director and one of the co-authors of the study.
“It also provides an important impetus for the further development of international climate policy. This is because it points to the link between biomass and natural carbon sinks, and how they can contribute to mitigating climate change. Governments must treat it as a single overarching issue: comprehensive biosphere protection together with strong climate action,” adds Rockström.
At the close of the plastics treaty negotiations (INC-5.2), ambitious Member States held strong under immense pressure and a broken process and refused to end INC-5.2 with a weak treaty that would have failed to address the existential threat of plastic and repeated the fatal errors of the Paris climate negotiations.
Ana Rocha, Global Plastics Policy Director at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) states, “No treaty is better than a bad treaty. We stand with the ambitious majority who refused to back down and accept a treaty that disrespects the countries that are truly committed to this process and betrays our communities and our planet. Once again, negotiations collapsed, derailed by a chaotic and biased process that left even the most engaged countries struggling to be heard. A broken, non-transparent process will never deliver a just outcome. It’s time to fix it – so people and the planet can finally have a fighting chance.”
Opening plenary of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2 session)
Despite the fact that the vast majority of countries agreed on the need to cut plastic production, phase out harmful chemicals, ensure a Just Transition especially for waste pickers, establish a new dedicated fund, and make decisions through a 2/3 majority voting when consensus cannot be reached, among other ambitious measures, a small group of petro-states calling themselves the “like-minded countries” sabotaged each round of talks by insisting on consensus to block ambition, and threatening to trap negotiations in procedural debate if Member States ever called for a vote.
The Chair and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) failed to set the table for equitable and effective negotiations. Huge numbers of fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists swamped the talks while civil society was frequently shut out. The Chair played favorites with the low-ambition minority, while frequently ignoring high ambition countries from the Global South. When powerful countries wielded their money, political muscle, and influence to bully these nations into retreat, the silence from the podium was deafening. This is not the spirit of multilateralism – it was coercion.
“We cannot confuse procedural agreement with meaningful ambition. For years, the Global South has been the driving force behind the most ambitious proposals, but the consensus paralysis has prevented us from delivering the treaty the world urgently needs,” states Eskedar Awgichew Ergete of Eco-Justice Ethiopia.
INC-5.2 left ambitious countries lost in process: surprising changes in schedule, blatant lack of transparency, overnight meetings starting as late as 2 am, and a final plenary that started with 40-minute notice at 5.30 am – less than four hours after the Chair’s final draft was released and more than 14 hours after its scheduled time.
“The content is already difficult to agree on, but the broken process makes it worse. Two and a half years in, the rules of procedure are still not agreed upon, and the voting mechanism is still in brackets. Another round of negotiation is welcome, but it won’t help if we don’t fix the process,” said Salisa Traipipitsiriwat of Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) Thailand.
The momentum that civil society and Indigenous Peoples built over the course of the plastics treaty process is undeniable. Not too long-ago plastic pollution was seen as a largely waste management problem. Now, the science is clearer than ever on what it will take to solve this crisis, public awareness and alarm is at an all-time high, and over 100 countries have declared their support for plastic production cuts–all because of a strong, global movement to stop plastic pollution from extraction to final disposal.
Now more than ever, the conditions are set for deep transformative change, with or without a plastics treaty. Strong relationships forged between Member States and environmental justice groups will provide countries with the expertise to follow through on their commitments. Business models will be mandated to shift and align with reuse systems. The science is clear, the health impacts are indisputable, the path forward well-defined—and denial is no longer an option.
Thais Carvajal, Alianza Basura Cero Ecuador, said: “There was no conclusion for the treaty, but we are not backing down: the process and its challenges have made us stronger. We have changed the narrative and will keep fighting plastic pollution.”
Graham Forbes, Greenpeace Head of Delegation to the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations and Global Plastics Campaign Lead for Greenpeace USA, said: “The inability to reach an agreement in Geneva must be a wakeup call for the world: ending plastic pollution means confronting fossil fuel interests head on. The vast majority of governments want a strong agreement, yet a handful of bad actors were allowed to use process to drive such ambition into the ground. We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result. The time for hesitation is over.
“The plastics crisis is accelerating, and the petrochemical industry is determined to bury us for short-term profits. Now is not the time to blink. Now is the time for courage, resolve and perseverance. The call from all of civil society is clear: we need a strong, legally binding treaty that cuts plastic production, protects human health, provides robust and equitable financing, and ends the plastic pollution from extraction to disposal. And world leaders must listen. The future of our health and planet depends on it.”
Hellen Kahaso Dena, Greenpeace Africa’s Pan-Africa Plastics Project Lead, said: “As governments put their political and economic interests before people and the planet, the planet burns, our oceans choke and our children breathe, drink and eat microplastics. This delay allows polluters to continue flooding the world with plastic, while frontline communities face the dire consequences of this crisis.
“The opportunity to secure a plastics treaty that protects our health, biodiversity and climate is still within reach. Member states need to up their game, step up with courage and deliver a treaty that cuts plastic production to alleviate our communities from the detrimental impacts of plastic pollution.”
Lisa Pastor, Advocacy Officer for Surfrider Foundation Europe: “The world has been waiting for strong leadership from Geneva, hoping for a plastic treaty that can truly end the global pollution crisis. Instead, a text quietly published in the middle of the night offers little more than voluntary promises disguised as progress. The slight changes since the last version may give the illusion of progress, but the reality is that of a weak text calling for national measures, with no possibility of strengthening it over time.
“Plastic pollution knows no borders; it requires collective and binding action, not concessions to the lowest common denominator. This process has not fulfilled its mandate, and the outcome serves the interests of industrial lobbies and a few blocking countries, rather than the majority of countries ready to adopt an ambitious treaty. This last session shows us one thing: the rules of the game must change.”
Manon Richert, Communications Manager of Zero Waste France: “We regret that the non-transparent and non-democratic process set up under INC 5.2 has not resulted in a binding treaty, aimed at combating plastic pollution at every stage of the life cycle. Although in the minority, the oil states and the fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbies have succeeded in dragging the text down. It is imperative that the continuation of discussions be carried out within a framework that allows for better consideration of countries in favour of a text based on science and the needs of the people on the front line.
“These countries are now in the majority: in this respect, we must pay tribute to the work carried out for more than two years by associations and scientists to bring the impacts of plastic on health and the environment to the attention of decision-makers and the public. We also welcome the diplomatic efforts led by France: we call on the government to continue these efforts at the international and European levels and to translate this commitment into concrete actions on the national territory.”
Sylvie Platel, head of the Health, Environment & Gender Advocacy Department (WECF): “The text proposed in questionable circumstances is largely insufficient. It will not solve the dramatic plastic crisis we are experiencing, which poses alarming health risks and requires immediate action. The key elements of controls on chemicals and substances, production, and the impact of plastic pollution on health are entirely voluntary or non-existent. There is also a need to address the disproportionate burden on marginalised groups, especially women and girls, whose health and livelihoods and rights are too often neglected.”
Steve Trent, Executive Director and Founder of the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF): “INC-5.2 was adjourned without a treaty or clear direction for the way forward, paralysed by bad faith actors and weak draft text from the Chair, which did little to advance previous work. It is becoming increasingly clear that the search for consensus is not appropriate: we must work towards a more effective solution. We salute the most ambitious countries for refusing to settle for a meaningless agreement and call on them to act quickly to chart a new course for people and the planet.”
Scientists Coalition said: “After 10 days of negotiations in Geneva, countries have not yet agreed on a new global plastics treaty. A large group of countries dissatisfied with the proposed text refused to accept a weak agreement that falls short of protecting environmental and human health, as indicated by the science. The current draft text would not fulfill the UNEA 5/14 mandate to end plastic pollution. The committee has now agreed to extend the negotiations into yet another meeting session with dates and location still to be determined.
“In Geneva, negotiators could not agree on key provisions essential to protecting the environment and human health, including effective obligations to reach sustainable levels of plastic production, address health, and account for impacts across the full life cycle of plastics. While a small group of countries actively denied the scientific evidence, we were encouraged by the overwhelming majority who engaged constructively with it. Our scientists thank them for their hard work and courage, and we remain committed to providing robust, independent science to support the next steps in the negotiations.”
Global Environment Facility (GEF) CEO and Chairperson, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez: “While it is disappointing that an agreement was not reached this week in Geneva, I was heartened to see the committed efforts by ministers and negotiators in pursuit of a new plastic pollution treaty that can underwrite meaningful, positive, long-term impacts.
“The Global Environment Facility is a committed and leading investor in plastic pollution solutions, and we stand ready to support implementation of an intended future treaty. In the meantime, we will continue our ambitious investments to address challenges across the full life cycle of plastic and will prioritise pollution control throughout our programming as a core priority for our next replenishment period.”
Surangel Whipps Jr, President of Palau, speaking as Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS): “This was never going to be easy – but the outcome we have today falls short of what our people, and the planet, need. Still, even after six rounds of negotiations, we will not walk away. The resilience of islanders has carried us through many storms, and we will persevere – because we need real solutions, and we will carve pathways to deliver them for our people and our planet.”
At the conclusion of the negotiations, Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) staff offered the following reflections:
Giulia Carlini, Senior Attorney and Environmental Health Programme Manager: “Toxics and microplastics are poisoning our bodies, causing cancer, infertility, and death, while corporations keep profiting from unchecked production. The science is undeniable. Yet here, it has been denied and downplayed. Despite this flawed process, the message remains clear: people and the majority of countries demand a drastic change. A treaty is still possible, but whatever comes next must be grounded in science and what is best for human health.”
Helionor De Anzizu, Senior Attorney: “A treaty to end plastic pollution must rise to the scale of the crisis. It must meet the standards of existing international law – under the Paris Agreement, the Law of the Sea, human rights treaties, and customary law – and go further, turning commitments into concrete, enforceable actions. The draft treaty fell short, with mainly voluntary measures. While a strong treaty to end plastic pollution is urgently needed, the Chair’s two proposed drafts would have left the world in a limbo of inaction and endless debate while the plastic crisis worsens.
Andrés Del Castillo, Senior Attorney: “The plastics treaty negotiations are shaping not only the future of plastic governance but also the way future environmental negotiations will play out. This INC was doomed from the start. Poor time management, unrealistic expectations, lack of transparency, and a ministerial segment with no clear purpose – all of which undermined the ability to close the deal.
“If and when talks resume, it will be essential to change how and where the work is done. Geneva made it evident: A clear, step-by-step plan is essential, one that identifies who will steer the process, where the meetings will be held, and how the agenda will address the fact that this is not only a pollution crisis – but also a climate crisis.”
Melissa Blue Sky, Senior Attorney: “Multilateral treaty negotiations are incredibly difficult even under the best conditions, and the INC process has been far from that. A handful of countries continue to insist that the INC cannot vote and have threatened to derail negotiations if any country proposes a vote. The result is a negotiation in which the least ambitious countries regularly veto global obligations to address production and product phase-outs by insisting that there is no consensus, despite these measures having support from the majority of countries.
“Because of this, the weak proposed final text from the Chair, with a few token elements for the more ambitious countries, was rejected by blocking countries. If countries hope to ever achieve a treaty that meaningfully addresses plastics pollution, they will either need to vote at the INC or take the negotiation elsewhere.”
Dharmesh Shah, Consulting Senior Campaigner (Plastics Treaty): “Let’s be clear, the plastic crisis is a health and a human rights crisis. This session ends without an agreement and without the health and human rights protections that millions urgently need. Once again, a small bloc of countries has obstructed progress on measures to curb toxic chemicals and limit production, steps that could have moved us closer to securing our human right to health and a clean, sustainable, and healthy environment.
“This failure comes as communities around the world are already breathing toxic air, drinking contaminated water, and carrying toxic chemicals in their bodies – the direct consequence of weak protections, poor access to information, and exclusion from environmental decision-making. The majority of governments, rights-holders, and civil society remain united: a plastics treaty without health and human rights is not only inadequate, it is an abdication of responsibility.”
Delphine Levi Alvares, Global Petrochemicals Campaign Manager: “This latest failed attempt at delivering a treaty that meets the urgency of the plastic pollution crisis bears the bloody fingerprints of Petrostates and their fossil fuel and petrochemical industry allies. UNEP and the Secretariat enabled a disastrous process that allowed industry interests to poison the proceedings and affect the outcomes of the talks.
“In Geneva, petrostates gaslit us in broad daylight, blocking meaningful progress against the will of a majority of countries while claiming to be doing so for the very future generations their petropatriarchal regimes doom. While the fossil fuel and petrochemical industry leaves with their financial interests safe, the frontline communities and Indigenous communities will continue paying the price.”
Rachel Radvany, Environmental Health Campaigner: “This round of negotiations saw record numbers of fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists – proof that industry is desperate to derail a treaty that could hold it accountable. But civil society and rights-holders met their presence with determination and clarity, calling for a treaty that safeguards health, communities, and human rights. For each of us, there is a community at home – for each of them, a CEO’s pocketbook. We are here to stay, and history is moving with us.”
Ximena Banegas, Global Plastics and Petrochemicals Campaigner: “Governments around the world are propping up a failing plastics industry with public money – then making us pay again to clean up the health and environmental damage caused by its pollution. This treaty is an opportunity to chart a path toward stable economies and real climate solutions. Petrostates showed their true colors by being more interested in their profits, choosing instead to further chain themselves to an industry riddled with growing risks.”
Virginie Dufour, Member of the Parliament of Canada for Mille-Îles, Official Opposition Critic for the Environment, and member of the Interparliamentry Coalition to End Plastic Pollution (ICEPP): “In order to meet our 2050 climate goals, a treaty to set a global reduction target, supported by ambitious national measures, starting with a moratorium on the creation of new production capacity, especially for the most polluting plastics, would have been excellent news. This failure is disappointing, but I am determined to continue my active involvement in ICEPP in order to contribute to the fight against plastic pollution, a real poison for human health and the environment. I hope to be able to count on the support of the CAQ Minister of the Environment in this process.”
After days of intense negotiations in Geneva, efforts to secure a global treaty to end plastic pollution ended on Friday, August 15, 2025, without agreement on a draft text. The session was adjourned with plans to resume at a later date.
Nations worked for 11 days at the United Nations office to try to complete a landmark treaty to end the plastic pollution crisis. But they were deadlocked over whether the treaty should reduce exponential growth of plastic production and put global, legally binding controls on toxic chemicals used to make plastics. Most plastic is made from fossil fuels.
Countries have failed to agree on treaty to end plastic pollution
Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, said despite challenges, despite the disappointment, “we have to accept that significant progress was made.”
This process won’t stop, she said, but it’s too soon to say how long it will take to get a treaty now.
The Youth Plastic Action Network was the only organisation to speak at the closing meeting on Friday. Comments from observers were cut off at the request of the U.S. and Kuwait after 24 hours of meetings and negotiating.
Like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the U.S. opposed cutting plastic production or banning chemical additives in the treaty. It supported provisions to improve waste collection and management, improve product design and drive recycling, reuse and other efforts to cut the plastic dumped into the environment.
A repeat of last year
The negotiations at the U.N. hub were supposed to be the last round and produce the first legally binding treaty on plastic pollution, including in the oceans. But just like at the meeting in South Korea last year, they left without a treaty.
Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of the negotiating committee, wrote and presented two drafts of treaty text in Geneva based on the views expressed by the nations. The representatives from 184 countries did not agree to use either one as the basis for their negotiations.
Valdivieso said on Friday morning as the delegates reconvened in the assembly hall that no further action is being proposed at this stage on the latest draft.
A ‘deeply disappointing’ outcome
Representatives of Norway, Australia, Tuvalu and others nations said they were deeply disappointed to be leaving Geneva without a treaty. Madagascar said the world is “expecting action, not reports from us.”
European Commissioner, Jessika Roswall, said the European Union and its member states had higher expectations for this meeting and while the draft falls short on their demands, it’s a good basis for another negotiating session.
“The Earth is not ours only. We are stewards for those who come after us. Let us fulfill that duty,” she said.
China’s delegation said the fight against plastic pollution is a long marathon and that this temporary setback is a new starting point to forge consensus. It urged nations to work together to offer future generations a blue planet without plastic pollution.
Lots of red lines
The biggest issue of the talks has been whether the treaty should impose caps on producing new plastic or focus instead on things like better design, recycling and reuse. Powerful oil- and gas-producing nations and the plastics industry oppose production limits. They want a treaty focused on better waste management and reuse.
Saudi Arabia said both drafts lacked balance, and Saudi and Kuwaiti negotiators said the latest proposal takes other states’ views more into account. It addressed plastic production, which they consider outside the scope of the treaty.
That draft, released early Friday, did not include a limit on plastic production, but recognized that current levels of production and consumption are “unsustainable” and global action is needed. New language had been added to say these levels exceed current waste management capacities and are projected to increase further, “thereby necessitating a coordinated global response to halt and reverse such trends.”
The objective of the treaty was revamped to state that the accord would be based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics. It talked about reducing plastic products containing “a chemical or chemicals of concern to human health or the environment,” as well as reducing of single-use or short-lived plastic products.
It was a much better, more ambitious text, though not perfect. But each country came to Geneva with a lot of “red lines,” said Magnus Heunicke, the Danish environment minister. Denmark holds the rotating presidency of the Council of Europe.
“To be very clear, a compromise means that we have to bend our red lines,” he said.
For its part, Iran said it’s a disappointing moment and faulted “nontransparent and non-inclusive processes on unrealistic elements,” particularly chemicals.
The plastics industry also urged compromise. The Global Partners for Plastics Circularity said in a statement that governments must move past entrenched positions to finalize an agreement reflecting their shared priorities.
No consensus
For any proposal to make it into the treaty, every nation must agree. India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Vietnam and others have said that consensus is vital to an effective treaty. Some countries want to change the process so decisions may be made by a vote if necessary.
Graham Forbes, head of the Greenpeace delegation in Geneva, urged delegates in that direction.
“We are going in circles. We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result,” he said as Friday’s meeting ended.
The International Pollutants Elimination Network said what happened in Geneva showed “consensus is dead.”
Thursday was the last scheduled day of negotiations, but work on the revised draft continued into Friday.
Every year, the world makes more than 400 million tons of new plastic, and that could grow by about 70% by 2040 without policy changes. About 100 countries want to limit production. Many have said it’s also essential to address toxic chemicals used to make plastics.
Science shows what it will take to end pollution and protect human health, said Bethanie Carney Almroth, an ecotoxicology professor at Sweden’s University of Gothenburg who co-leads the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty. The science supports addressing the full lifecycle of plastics, beginning with extraction and production, and restricting some chemicals to ensure plastics are safer and more sustainable, she added.
“The science has not changed,” she said. “It cannot be down negotiated.”
Environmentalists, waste pickers and Indigenous leaders and many business executives traveled to the talks to make their voices heard. Some used creative tactics, but are leaving disappointed.
Indigenous leaders sought a treaty that recognises their rights and knowledge. Frankie Orona, executive director of the Texas-based Society of Native Nations, said the best option now is to move forward with more negotiations to “fight for a treaty that truly safeguards people and the planet.”
As the INC-5.2 Global Plastics Treaty negotiations came to an end in Geneva, Switzerland, on Friday, August 15, 2025, affected groups aligned for justice have expressed strong disapproval of the treaty process and the state of the chair’s proposal text.
Indigenous Peoples, waste pickers, trade union workers, youth, and fenceline communities are drawing the line and are amplifying a shared message: The negotiations in Geneva made achieving an inclusive just transition impossible, by design.
Conor Carlin, immediate past president of SPE, speaks at the opening of the sixth round of global plastics treaty talks, in Geneva. Photo credit: Steve Toloken
During an August 13, 2025, press conference, consisting of justice-aligned groups, Aakaluk Adrienne Blatchford, an Inupiaq mother and land defender, testified to the embodied violence of erasures and exclusions at INC-5.2. Representing the Indigenous Environmental Network, she insisted, “A treaty about us, without us, is erasing history. Indigenous Peoples, waste pickers, People of Color, marginalised fenceline and frontline communities are here. Our bodies are born on the line. We will hold the line because we are the line.”
Critiquing the Unjust Process
The Just Transition Alliance critiqued negotiations taking place behind closed doors at INC-5, the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations in November 2024. Unacceptably, this violation of environmental justice principles continued at INC-5.2.
John Beard, of Port Arthur Community Action Network, decried the failures during the Global Plastics Treaty negotiation.
He said: “The redlining and bracketing acts of others have once again sacrificed us and our communities. They and the industry continue to devalue our lives, mute our voices, but we refuse to be sacrificed any further. Here we draw the line on their red line; an impotent treaty serves no one.
“We’ve been locked out of the meetings.”
Much of the negotiations were moved to closed informal sessions during the latter half of week one, continuing into week two. Four of the plenary sessions during INC-5.2 failed to open the floor to observers and their statements. The only publicly broadcast sessions of the negotiations were the plenaries. Failing to open the floor to observer statements undermined accountability to the watching world and further sidelined voices marginalised by dominant systems and structures of power. During INC-5.2, a member state delegation even proposed that observerparticipation should be tied to consensus.
Just transition depends on transparency and accountability to those most harmed by exploitative systems, not a consensus motivated by watered-down ambition that seeks to evaporate the collective strength and knowledges of Indigenous Peoples, frontline workers and waste pickers, and fenceline communities.
The United Nations Environment Programme also removed the option to host official side events, which were a successful way for movement groups to demonstrate solidarity and publicly name our priorities at INC-5. Concerningly, this exclusive decision made it harder to track side events being held by problematic actors outside the conference venue. For example, the PREVENT Waste Alliance held a side event that seemed not well-advertised to movement groups. This communication concern creates a host of problems, including limiting possibilities for intergenerational conversations and collaborations.
Nayana Cordeiro da Silva, of Youth Plastic Action Network and the Children and Youth Major Group, asserted: “Intergenerational equity is at the essence of protecting current and future generations.”
All affected groups need access to policy spaces, ample opportunities to participate and lead, and more physical seats in the negotiating rooms to ensure processes are accountable to those most harmed. Moreover, Indigenous Peoples must be recognized as distinct rightsholders, adhering to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and should not be conflated with other observers, such as NGOs and industry. This recognition also requires obtaining Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.
Signaling Dangerous Issues in the Treaty
While there is much to critique about the Global Plastics Treaty chair’s text, the group especially opposes the deletion of key articles focusing on plastic production cuts and supporting health. We also condemn the text’s fully inadequate engagement with just transition.
Former Article 6 on supply-side measures was removed from the draft text, resulting in plastic production cuts not being included. Treaty drafters also deleted former Article 19 on health. Taken together, these eliminations severely weaken the treaty’s ability to prevent damaging health and environmental impacts caused by the full impact-cycle of plastics, from extraction to disposal and remediation.
Vi Pangunnaaq Waghiyi, a Yupik Mother and Grandmother and Tribal Citizen of the Native Village of Savoonga, linked plastics inextricably to health harms by describing the devastation of the arctic from microplastics.
As the Environmental Health and Justice Director with Alaska Community Action on Toxics, she testified, “This has resulted in environmental violence. We are being contaminated without our consent …. In the current plastics treaty negotiations, states have stripped essential language on health impacts, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the explicit listing of chemicals.” Blatchford similarly insisted, “The time is now for divestment from the petro-chemical industries, identifying and banning chemicals of concern and false solutions that allow big producers to continue business as usual. Indigenous Peoples will continue to show up to hold the line.”
The indispensable Just Transition section (now Article 9) of the treaty text is far too weak. Crucially, this article remains voluntary and repeatedly uses the language of “as appropriate” and “should,” rather than “shall.”
Just Transition Alliance Policy Organiser, Fernando Tormos-Aponte, also raised strong concerns with the article’s wording.
He cautioned: “The voluntary nature of just transition language weakens the prospects of holding governments accountable to their treaty obligations to compensate and include groups impacted by the plastic pollution crisis in decisions about how to address it and change fossil-fuel-based economies. The Paris Agreement on Climate is a telling example, where just transition was only mentioned in the preamble, and after 10 years, we have only gotten dialogues about just transition but no real commitments to enact it. These delays and weak policy efforts are at odds with the urgency of addressing the problem and neglect the historic and ongoing harms that various groups experience.”
The Just Transition Article also fails to mention and focus on Indigenous Peoples, a glaring oversight and dismissal of groups calling for an inclusive just transition rooted in Indigenous Traditional Knowledge.
As Soledad Mella Vidal, a Mapuche woman with the International Alliance of Waste Pickers, stated, “Over 40 million waste pickers are counting on member states to ensure a legally binding commitment to a just transition where no one is left behind.”
Recommitting to Just Transition with Frontline-Led Solutions
Frontline groups say they have the solutions for justly transitioning toward flourishing communities that are free of plastics pollution and poisoning.
“We will continue to call for and practice evidence-based and frontline-led solutions that center the rights, knowledge, and leadership of those most affected by the plastics-petrochemical industries and the violent systems and structures that uphold their wealth and power. To create a just transition away from the plastic-petrochemical industries and health and environmental harms, we need real solutions from the ground up, with roots in Indigenous Traditional Knowledge. This commitment includes the need for policymakers to support the Polluter Pays Principle and the creation of direct funding for affected communities, which looks different across groups.”
Beard, a retired petrochemical worker, articulates the way forward for an inclusive just transition: “Just transition has to be for all workers. Their lives have to have health. They have to have worth. We have to see that in all the people who work in that chain, not just the waste pickers but also those in the petrochemical sector who work from plastics from the well head to the end user.”
What harms workers, also harms surrounding communities. Focusing on decent work for workers across the full impact-cycle of plastics requires simultaneously focusing on fenceline communities and Indigenous Peoples, centering their experiences, needs, and demands.
Accordingly, policymakers must follow Just Transition and Indigenous Just Transition Principles. As an Indigenous elder, Waghiyi reflected, “An Indigenous just transition requires binding commitments, upstream protections, transparent listing of chemicals and hazard assessments. Indigenous leadership and consent must be included in the text and not slogans in a preamble. The treaty must center Indigenous health and sovereignty or risk erasing generations of knowledge and undermining the Arctic’s ecological integrity.”
The treaty falls far short of these requirements
Reflecting on the INC-5.2 drafting process and what could be ahead, Tormos-Aponte concluded: “Some bad-faith actors may want to renegotiate the UNEA mandate for creating a legally binding Global Plastics Treaty that addresses supply-side measures, chemicals of concern, and health. That is not acceptable for us.”
Data for IPEN studies on workers’ exposures to plastic chemicals, including a cross-section of participants of high level delegates to the Plastics Treaty negotiations and plastic waste and recycling workers in Kenya and Thailand show that all study participants were exposed to a wide range of hazardous plastic chemicals.
Toxic plastic chemicals
The new data from Kenya and Treaty delegates and UN officials released at the Plastics Treaty INC-5.2 talks add to reports released by IPEN last December with data from other UN officials (“global participants”) and Thai plastic waste workers.
In all cases, all participants experienced exposures to plastic chemicals, with plastic waste workers facing overall higher levels of exposure to most chemicals than office workers.
The study, produced by IPEN members Centre for Environment, Justice and Development (CEJAD) in Kenya, Ecological Alert and Recovery – Thailand (EARTH), and Arnika in Czechia, with lab analysis by the Department of Food Analysis and Nutrition at the University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague looked at 73 substances from six groups of common toxic plastic chemicals.
The chemicals assessed included endocrine disrupting phthalates (called the everywhere and everyone chemicals), phthalate alternatives, flame retardants (OPFRs), benzotriazole UV stabilisers, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and bisphenols and phenols (eg, BPA). All participants experienced a mixture of chemical exposures to all six types of chemicals.
“The data clearly show that we are all at risk from hazardous chemicals in everyday products, and workers who deal with plastic waste face greater risks,” said Griffins Ochieng, Executive Director of CEJAD.“Toxic plastic chemicals like the phthalate ‘everywhere and everyone chemicals” pose significant health and environmental threats. A Plastics Treaty must provide global controls that protect our communities, workers, children and families from hazardous plastic chemicals.”
“All workers deserve a safe and healthy workplace, but our study shows this is especially important for workers involved in plastic recycling and waste disposal,” said Penchom Saetang, Director of Ecological Alert and Recovery – Thailand (EARTH).“A Plastics Treaty needs to address the release of toxic chemicals throughout the life cycle of plastics, to protect workers, communities near recycling and disposal facilities, and the environment. We urge delegates to ensure that worker protections and protections for human health are at the center of the negotiations.”
IPEN members CEJAD and EARTH coordinated with Kenyan and Thai plastic recycling workers, plastic waste workers, and workers in other settings, such as office settings or other settings without occupational exposures to plastic waste to assess their exposures to chemicals in plastics.
IPEN also enlisted Plastic Treaty delegates and high-ranking UN officials to participate in the study. Participants wore wristbands that capture environmental exposures to chemicals for five days. The wristbands were analyzed at an independent lab for 73 chemicals from six chemical groups, finding that:
All participants, including treaty delegates and plastic waste workers in Kenya and Thailand, were exposed to toxic plastic chemicals from all six chemical groups.
Among the plastic waste workers, in Thailand, each participant was exposed to at least 21 chemicals, and in Kenya at least 30 chemicals. Across the studies in both countries, 11 chemicals were found in every wristband tested.
Phthalates that are known endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) were detected at the highest concentrations of all the chemicals.
Plastic waste and recycling workers were exposed to more chemicals than office workers in each country. Plastic recycling workers were exposed to the highest number of chemicals in Thailand and plastic waste workers to the highest number of chemicals in Kenya.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are cancer-causing chemicals found in plastics and generated when burning plastics and other materials. Both plastic recyclers and plastic waste workers were exposed to higher concentrations and higher numbers of PAHs than office workers in each country.
All the delegates (“global participants”) were exposed to a mixture of many chemicals; each wristband of the global participants contained at least 26 chemicals, showing exposure to all six groups of chemicals. 16 of the 73 chemicals were present in all their wristbands.
“Most plastic chemicals are not regulated by current international agreements and would not be covered by current global Conventions. Since chemicals from plastics and plastic wastes cross national boundaries, controls on hazardous chemicals should be an essential component of the
Plastics Treaty,” said Sara Brosché, IPEN Science Advisor and lead author of the study. “Plastics and plastic chemicals cross national borders without control, so national policies alone cannot solve the plastics crisis. We encourage the Plastics Treaty delegates to follow the science and develop a meaningful agreement to protect the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, including a safe and healthy working environment.”
Plastics are made with thousands of chemicals, mostly petrochemicals derived from fossil fuels. Many plastic chemicals are known to be hazardous to our health and/or the environment, and many more that have little or no hazard information. Hazardous chemicals are released throughout the life cycle of plastics, including when plastic wastes are handled during waste processing or recycling. Recycling plastic also passes toxic chemicals on, poisoning the “circular” economy and creating ongoing risks to health and the environment.
Volker Türk, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said: Plastics and their byproducts are made of chemicals that are seriously harmful to people and the environment. They are present in every ecosystem on the planet, accumulating in food chains, contaminating water, soil, and air, and releasing hazardous substances into the environment. Most plastics derive from fossil fuels and emit greenhouse gases throughout their life cycle, exacerbating the multiple planetary crises.
“Each stage of the plastics life cycle from extraction through disposal, adversely impacts human rights, including the rights to health and to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. The negotiation of a new treaty on plastic pollution is a unique opportunity to advance human rights and protect our planet. We must seize this moment and deploy human rights solutions to stop the senseless destruction caused by plastic pollution.”
Luis Vayas Valdivieso, Ambassador of Ecuador to the United Kingdom, said: “Chair of the INC to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution. Plastics and the chemicals used to make them surround us daily. As the INC Chair, I participated in this study to learn more about them. As we look ahead, we must succeed in the Plastics Treaty negotiations, for the well-being of our planet and human health.
Magnus Heunicke, Minister for the Environment, Denmark, said: Plastic pollution is a global challenge to both the environment and human health and the results underline the need for global action on plastic chemicals.
Camila Zepeda Lizama, Head of the Coordination Unit for International Affairs, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Mexico, said: We are discouraged to find from the IPEN study that toxic plastic chemicals are trespassing into our bodies every day. Phthalates, for example, are ‘everywhere and everyone’ chemicals that are linked to serious health concerns like infertility and cancer. A Plastics Treaty must protect human health and provide global controls on toxic chemicals throughout the plastics life cycle.
Ms. Keima Gardiner,Waste Management Specialist, Republic of Trinidad C Tobago, said: It takes a certain level of ambition to cultivate a seemingly impossible future, and as knowledge increases so do expectations. Participation in this study not only brought to the fore the hidden chemicals and potential threats in plastics from routine exposure but more so underscored the urgent need to catalyse the development of a purposeful global Plastics Treaty that addresses plastic pollution and reflects our collective will to amplify action to protect human health and the environment, for those among us and the generations to come.
Dr. Maria Neira,Director, Environment, Climate Change and Health, World Health Organisation, said: Exposure to chemicals used in plastics that have long been regulated, like certain phthalates, is a public health concern. These chemicals are known to disrupt our bodies’ natural hormones and demonstrate the urgent need for strong global protections for our health and the environment. The Plastics Treaty should be a key global agreement to protect human health and future generations.
Oil and gas service providers across Africa have formed a continental forum known as the African Local Content Organisation (ALCO), with the goal of collaborating among themselves to deliver complex projects, creating and retaining value in the multibillion dollar African energy sector and growing the economy.
The organisation was unveiled on Wednesday, August 13, Day 2 of the 2025 Namibia Oil and Gas Conference, at Windhoek, Namibia. Membership is open to national associations of service providers in the oil and gas and mining sectors across the African continent.
Chairman of the Petroleum Technology Association of Nigeria (PETAN) and member of NCDMB Governing Council, Mr. Wole Ogunsanya, speaking at the conference
Chairman of the Petroleum Technology Association of Nigeria (PETAN) and member of NCDMB Governing Council, Mr. Wole Ogunsanya, introduced the organisation and explained that the body would serve as the private sector arm of the African Petroleum Producers’ Organisation, (APPO), which comprises African governments engaged in oil and gas operations.
He underscored the pivotal and complimentary roles the private sector plays in building African local content, particularly in the development of competent human capacities, deployment of technologies and equipment, mobilization of private capital, and execution of projects.
Ogunsanya said the organisation would be launched officially at the 2026 African Union (AU) conference, in view of its strategic importance to continent’s economy.
Key to the group’s plan is to institute close partnership with APPO and the African Energy Bank (AEB). The Bank was recently set up by APPO to fund big ticket energy projects across the continent and bridge the funding gap impeding the development of key energy projects.
Members of the group, Ogunsanya said, are well positioned to execute key scopes of the projects that would be financed by the Energy Bank. This would guarantee value and spend retention in the continent, helping to catalyze the economy.
Other key objectives of the forum include facilitating exchange of knowledge and capacities among African energy service companies, enabling collaboration on projects, and growing Africa’s gross domestic product (GDP).
The PETAN Chair added: “Through the forum we can carry out benchmark studies, join forces to solve industry problems. It is also a forum where African energy service companies can link up and find partners across the continent. It would enable the exchange of equipment and partnership on major industry projects. As Namibia or any other African country develops energy projects, you can count on your African brothers to share our over 70 years’ knowledge and experience in the oil and gas industry.”
Fourteen African countries have already joined the organisation, he said, including Nigeria, Morocco, Senegal, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The PETAN chairman is serving as the interim chair of the African Local Content Organisation, while Ibrahim Talla from Senegal is the Secretary.
The new organisation has received endorsement from the Executive Secretary, Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board (NCDMB), Felix Omatsola Ogbe, who described it as a key platform for advancing African local content.
Represented at the Namibian event by the Director, Corporate Services, Dr. Abdulmalik Halilu, the NCDMB boss referenced the vital roles the Board played in the establishment of the African Energy Bank, assuring that it would continue to promote African local content and extend every possible assistance to the ALCO.
The Surveyor General of the Federation (SGOF), Abudulganiyu Adebomehin, has issued a stern warning to states, emphasising that all illegal structures built along Nigeria’s shorelines will be demolished.
This is contained in a statement signed by Mr. Henry David, Head of Information and Public Relations, on Thursday, August 14, 2025, in Abuja.
Surveyor General of the Federation, Mr. Abuduganiyu Adebomehin
Adebomehin gave the warning during a visit by the executive teams of the Nigerian Institution of Surveyors (NIS) and the Association of Private Practising Surveyors of Nigeria (APPSN).
According to him, the demolition directive aligns with national urban planning laws and international maritime frameworks, particularly the Law of the Sea.
Additional roles and responsibilities have been attached to the Office of the Surveyor General of the Federation (OSGOF).
This follows its recent move under the direct oversight of the Presidency.
Adebomehin stated, “As part of the President’s directive, all requests for issuance of Certificates of Occupancy (C-of-Os), permits, and survey plans along the shoreline should be put on hold.
“This will be pending determination on merit for further processing by OSGOF.”
He further directed the National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA) to collate and submit all prior shoreline-related approvals issued to individuals or corporate entities to the OSGOF.
“Any documents previously submitted to other organisations or MDAs concerning shoreline matters should now be redirected to his office.”
The Surveyor General expressed concern over the continued duplication of OSGOF’s functions by some MDAs, in spite of the official pronouncement of its relocation to the Presidency.
He also criticised states that were still allocating land within shoreline areas without involving the OSGOF.
“The enforcement unit will demolish anything within the right of way (ROW); this is an executive order.
“The Federal Government does not want any unapproved allocation around the shoreline.
“This is subject to the Law of the Sea, and there is a strong commitment to ensure compliance. The OSGOF has the right map,” he warned.
Adebomehin also commended the visiting surveyor bodies for their dedication to advancing the surveying profession in Nigeria and pledged continued collaboration toward shared goals.
Speaking during the visit, the Surveyor General of the NIS, Folakemi Odunewu, said the delegation came to congratulate Adebomehin on OSGOF’s transition to the Presidency and to present their demands.
“We have a seven-point agenda, which includes digital transformation of the National Secretariat, public relations and advocacy, and extending our engagements to other relevant stakeholders,” she said.
Odunewu added that their agenda also covered the re-agitation of the Survey Coordination Act and the development of additional professional excellence structures for NIS members.
She also highlighted a renewed push for the creation of a dedicated Ministry of Surveying and Geoinformatics.
Demonstrating strong unity, Global South Member States and Civil Society called for ambitious, legally binding global measures to curb plastic production, in a media briefing on Thursday, August 14, 2025, the closing day of the second part of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2), held by the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA).
The event brought together civil society organisations (CSOs) from across the Global South, including the Association de l’Education Environnementale pour les Futures Générations- Tunisia, C4 Center – Malaysia, and Acción Ecológica Mexico. It also featured distinguished delegates from Ethiopia and Fiji, including Hiwot Hailu, Chief of Staff at the Environmental Protection Authority of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, and Dr. Sivendra Michael, Permanent Secretary at Fiji’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change.
Global South Member States and Civil Society during GAIA’s INC-5.2 Global South Media Briefing. Photo credit: GAIA / Camila Aguilera
This gathering took place against the backdrop of the Chair’s latest text, released on Wednesday, August 12, which was universally rejected by countries and civil society groups. The text leaves out a key article on reducing plastic production, going against the treaty’s mandate to address plastics across their full life cycle, amongst other pressing issues. This position shaped the demands voiced by the panelists during the media briefing.
Merrisa Naidoo, GAIA Africa’s Plastics Programme Manager, stressed that a flawed process cannot deliver good outcomes.
“Consensus is not democracy. It ignores the will of the vast majority of member states and, unfortunately, has to cater to the wish list of the petro-states and fossil fuel industry,” submitted Naidoo.
This sentiment was further emphasised by Semia Gharbi, Chairperson & Co-Founder, Association de l’Education Environnementale pour les Futures Générations, who stated that the article on health in the Chair’s text was deleted in the current version.
“We have to remind our delegates that we must protect the environment. With a growing plastic crisis, we cannot ignore science,” said Gharbi.
SiPeng Wong of C4 Center in Malaysia stated, “If we don’t control the amount of waste being produced, it will end up exported to my country and region. In Southeast Asia, the volume of waste that reaches our backyard is unmanageable”. SiPeng noted that Malaysia alone receives over 415 million kg of waste from Global North countries.
“Without reducing the generation of waste, we will end up having to manage it”.
Dr. Larisa de Orbe of Acción Ecológica México expressed that plastic pollution already exceeded the limits of what people and nature can handle.
“Our government must negotiate free from industry pressure in order to truly safeguard the health and well-being of current and future generations,” Orbe said.
During the briefing, Member State representatives addressed questions about the role of Global South leadership in the treaty process. They were asked whether the critical priorities of the Global South were reflected in the Chair’s latest draft text, their reactions to it, and how civil society can support efforts to uphold ambitious commitments.
Responding to the question, a delegate from Fiji, Dr. Sivendra Michael, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, Fiji Government, said, “The last iteration of the text, which came out yesterday, we know is a serious regression from the UNEA Mandate 5/14 given to us as governments. We all agreed at UNEA 5 that we would address the full lifecycle of plastic.”
Furthermore, he highlighted, “There are many metaphors that we use, but one is that we can’t continue mopping the floor without turning the tap. We need legally binding global measures to control production.”
A delegate from Ethiopia, Hiwot Hailu, Chief of Staff, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Environmental Protection Authority, commented on the supportive role played by civil society within the INC-5.2, calling them the engine of our negotiating process.
“We need civil society to continue to be a partner, providing pressure from the outside to ensure negotiations don’t lose sight of our shared goals, and to continue advocacy for a legally binding plastic treaty that protects people and our planet,” stated the delegate from Ethiopia.
