CIVICUS speaks with Tatiana Luján, Materials Systems Lead at ClientEarth, about a lawsuit filed in collaboration with 15 other civil society organisations (CSOs) against a plan to open a huge plastics plant in Belgium, known as Project One, by petrochemicals giant INEOS.
ClientEarth is one of the world’s most ambitious environmental CSOs, established to create systemic change by using law to protect the planet for – and with – all its inhabitants.
Why are plastics a problem, and what should be done about it?
Plastics are mostly derived from fossil fuels, which poses a significant challenge to our future. Their production perpetuates a fossil-based economy, which promotes endless production and consumption, rather than a circular economy. Despite increasing awareness of the unsustainability of burning fossil fuels, the industry is shifting towards using them as feedstock for petrochemicals, which create far-reaching environmental harm and violate human rights.
Simply put, plastics are the fossil fuel industry’s plan B to keep their business alive now there is pressure to move away from fossil fuels. But we already have more plastic than we need, so projects that would fuel more unnecessary plastic production – such as Project One, planned by the global chemical company INEOS in Belgium – will inundate a market already saturated with plastic.
The production of plastics from petrochemicals also emits vast amounts of greenhouse gases. Even if 70 per cent of plastics were recycled – which would be a lot, considering that less than 10 per cent is recycled today – two-thirds of carbon stored in plastics would still be released back into the atmosphere within 15 years. And even the most recyclable plastics can only be recycled for a few cycles. Contrary to belief, simply recycling plastic doesn’t result in carbon neutrality, as this still emits greenhouse gases and requires energy-intensive production.
Petrochemicals and plastics are so carbon intensive that continuing to rely on them hinders our ability to meet our climate goals under the Paris Agreement. Investments in these projects also lock in plastic production for decades, further impeding the ability to reach our climate targets and delaying the transition to more sustainable economies.
Additionally, the development of new plastic plants in areas already burdened with pollution poses serious health risks and further exacerbates damage to nature and our environment. To address climate change and safeguard nature and our health, we need to promote sustainability by exploring and investing in alternatives. This includes redirecting funding towards scaling up circular economies and prioritising reduce, reuse and recycle models. It is crucial to reconsider such projects and align investments with environmental and societal goals.
What are INEOS’ arguments in favour of their new development, and what are your objections?
One of its key arguments is that its plan would be less carbon-intensive than other plants currently in operation because of its relatively newer technology. It claims that emissions from its plant would be lower by comparison. However, it is essential to consider the long-term implications. Plants like Project One have a 40-year lifespan, so investments of this kind lock in plastic production and the repercussions of that production for decades to come.
INEOS also addresses climate concerns by suggesting it will explore technologies to capture and reduce emissions in the future. These could include using green hydrogen or carbon capture storage.
However, the hydrogen technology and carbon capture and storage units that INEOS foresees relying on are not viable options as they are currently not available commercially at scale. The certainty of Project One’s climate impacts therefore contrasts with the uncertainty of these technological fixes. It is inconsistent to accept certain environmental damage based on uncertain solutions to climate change. Therefore, it is imperative to evaluate critically the long-term consequences of such projects and prioritise sustainable alternatives.
How has the legal case unfolded so far?
We launched a legal battle against Project One in 2019, supported by a coalition of 15 CSOs. After INEOS submitted its initial permit application, we swiftly filed an administrative objection. Despite the permit initially being granted by the Port of Antwerp, we appealed to the Flemish Ministry of Environment due to an incomplete Environmental Impact Assessment report, crucial for assessing the project’s effects comprehensively.
The permit focused solely on the construction’s environmental impacts, neglecting the plant’s operational effects. This practice, known as ‘salami slicing’, violates the requirement in European law to consider the project as a whole. Securing an injunction in December, we compelled INEOS to withdraw its permit request, prompting it to re-evaluate its plans.
INEOS subsequently scrapped half of the project and submitted a new permit application in 2021, approved by the Flemish Ministry of Environment in December 2021. In response, the civil society coalition filed a lawsuit in January 2022, highlighting the permit’s incomplete assessment of environmental impacts, including climate effects, and air pollution impacts on public health.
Simultaneously, two Dutch provinces, North Brabant and Zeeland, filed lawsuits. The two provinces argued that Project One would generate nitrogen pollution, which would contaminate neighbouring protected areas in the Netherlands already oversaturated by nitrogen. After a year and a half, the Council for Permit Disputes ruled on the Dutch cases and annulled the permit, citing violations of European Union (EU) nature laws.
INEOS appealed this decision, and the case is currently before the Council of State, Belgium’s highest administrative court. The Council for Permit Disputes also granted the Flemish Ministry of Environment six months to revise the permit to ensure compliance with EU law. INEOS obtained a new permit in January this year, prompting us to file a new lawsuit reiterating our concerns in February.
Considering the previous timeline, we anticipate a decision on the latest lawsuit within a year and a half.
What impacts could a positive ruling have in Belgium and beyond?
This case, based on the EU’s Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, carries significant implications for Belgium and the wider community.
EU laws clearly require an assessment to be made on the direct and indirect impacts of a planned project on biodiversity, climate, human health, soil and water. However, there is a need for further legal clarity around assessing indirect greenhouse gas emissions, which our legal action aims to address. In light of the urgent need to address the climate crisis and reduce plastic pollution, it is crucial to scrutinise projects like Project One.
A court ruling, particularly from the Court of Justice of the EU, would set a precedent and provide clarity on how to navigate the complex intersection of environmental protection and industrial development. Such a ruling would prompt a re-evaluation of our trajectory, compelling us to rethink the role of the petrochemical industry within our planetary boundaries.
It is evident that mere technological fixes focused solely on improving the production process are insufficient. Instead, we must take a holistic approach, questioning the necessity of petrochemical production and ensuring it aligns with the wellbeing of humanity and the environment. This case presents a unique opportunity to advance towards a more sustainable future, where humans and nature thrive together.
How do you connect with wider regional and global environmental movements?
We are proud members of the Break Free from Plastic coalition, actively participating in regular meetings and catch-ups in person and online. Many of our CSO partners are located in Belgium and the Netherlands, allowing easy travel by train for face-to-face meetings, which greatly facilitates collaboration.
We are also engaged in the broader global movement of Break Free from Plastic. This collaboration extends to experts such as CSOs in Asia and the USA. Our focus spans the entire lifecycle of plastic, from the fracking process in the USA to the plastic pollution affecting Southeast Asian countries due to the export of European plastic waste.
Being part of this movement and community facilitates collaboration with experts, scientists and climate activists and provides access to valuable resources and knowledge-sharing opportunities.
What other initiatives are you undertaking to tackle plastics pollution?
Our efforts extend across various stages of the plastic lifecycle. We are actively engaged in combating greenwashing practices, ensuring that companies accurately represent their environmental impact. At the European level, we advocate for stringent regulations, including the Eco-Design Directive, the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation and the implementation of the Single-Use Plastic Directive.
We also focus on capacity development and knowledge exchange with partners worldwide, learning from, and collaborating with, organisations tackling similar challenges globally. Our work also encompasses non-financial disclosures, urging companies to recognise the risks associated with heavy investment in plastic production and use. We have engaged with banks, investors, supermarkets and United Nations bodies in relation to their obligations to disclose and manage their material business risk and material environmental impact in relation to plastics.
By addressing multiple angles, such as plastic usage, production and investment, we strive to mitigate the environmental and societal risks posed by plastic pollution. Our comprehensive approach aims to drive systemic change and foster a more sustainable future for all.
Civic space in Belgium is rated ‘narrowed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with ClientEarth through its website or Facebook page, and follow it on Twitter and Instagram.